# Revised Ranger update



## pukunui (Jul 29, 2018)

Looks like the revised ranger might be dead.

Jeremy Crawford just posted this on Twitter:


----------



## pukunui (Jul 29, 2018)

Also this:


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 29, 2018)

Well, good riddance. The revisions never seemed to add much, and the Class works as is. More focus on other options is a good development.


----------



## jgsugden (Jul 29, 2018)

There is a bit of a fallacy at play here... the class has a historic popularity that lends it to being played, even if it isn't 'balanced' AS WELL as other classes.  In a campaign with efficient PCs, the ranger struggles to match up.  Does it need to be fixed?  No.  Of course not.  It may struggle, but it isn't a joke.  It can be played.  But tht does not mean it would not benefit from a revision.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 29, 2018)

jgsugden said:


> There is a bit of a fallacy at play here... the class has a historic popularity that lends it to being played, even if it isn't 'balanced' AS WELL as other classes.  In a campaign with efficient PCs, the ranger struggles to match up.  Does it need to be fixed?  No.  Of course not.  It may struggle, but it isn't a joke.  It can be played.  But tht does not mean it would not benefit from a revision.




There's always going to be a "last place". One class is always going to end up being the least popular or seen as the least powerful.
If they "fix" the ranger, then someone else just takes its place.

Plus, it was really an issue in 2015 when the older players and grognards were a larger percentage of the audience. The optimizers who looked and the ranger and found it unappealing. Now, a couple years and several million new players later, that segment of the audience is a much smaller minority. And the percentage of the audience that is happy with the ranger and is playing it as-is has increased.


----------



## Eubani (Jul 29, 2018)

I personally was fine with the class it was just the Beastmaster I thought needed more polish.


----------



## pukunui (Jul 29, 2018)

I personally don't have a problem with the beastmaster, although I must admit that it doesn't appeal to me. Not a big fan of pet classes myself.

My main issues with the PHB ranger have to do with Favored Terrain, Natural Explorer, and Primale Awareness. I think those features are a bit wonky. While the revised ranger fixed some of the issues I had with them, it introduced new ones. For instance, Primal Awareness went from being next to useless to a DM's nightmare. Natural Explorer also became far too front-loaded.

I can't say I'm particularly satisfied with any version of the 5e ranger. However, I can't really bother homebrewing my own version, so for my games, I've just stuck with the default PHB one. One of my players is playing a half-elf hunter ranger, and she seems to be enjoying it, so who am I to judge?


----------



## KenNYC (Jul 29, 2018)

I DMed a bunch of adv league and all the ranger players played the same:  take Hunters Mark (or whatever that is called).   That to me said there was something wrong with the design that every player played it the exact same way.   When they released a pdf of UA Ranger I played some sort of underground ranger, that allowed me to roleplay being obsessed with Drow (they killed my one true love apparently).   Consequently, I went heavy into using Detect Magic and it served the party quite well.  I never hunted a mark, or marked a hunted.  


The class doesn't need to be as powerful as everyone else, but this class, druids, and assassins all need a good DM who will come up with material to make the class shine.   These classes have strong theme--stronger than your central casting wizard or warlock, and you can have them thrive in settings.   The DM just has to put the work in.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Jul 29, 2018)

Seeing his comment at the bottom of the first tweet pictured, I think he must have been secretly reading the posts about the Ranger here.  lol


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 29, 2018)

pukunui said:


> Looks like the revised ranger might be dead.
> 
> Jeremy Crawford just posted this on Twitter:



Well, frak them.

The PHB Beastmaster is useless and a pet without its own action is shíte. 

Their success is getting to their heads with that dismissive and condescending tweet.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 29, 2018)

The revised rangers were all terribly overpowered.
The ranger works well as is.
It just needs a downtime activity to retrain terrain or add a favoured enemy.
Hunters mark is not needed all the time. Same goes for hex.
If you use xanathar subclasses you even have plenty of spells. So just cope with it.


----------



## Horwath (Jul 29, 2018)

Ranger is popular as concept.

As for balance, you compare paladin and ranger. Both martial half-casters.

Paladin blows it out of the water.

5.0 Ranger is like 3.0 Ranger. 

Then look at 3.5e ranger. Most buffed up class in 3.0->3.5 revision.


----------



## The Myopic Sniper (Jul 29, 2018)

Oh well, I can wait until 2024 for 6e to give the class a better experience, I probably could homebrew something between the original Beastmaster Ranger and the revised version to make something acceptable to Ranger lovers. I think they were on the right track if there was going to ever be a revision, it just needed to be pulled back slightly power-wise.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jul 29, 2018)

There is a UA ranger in one of my current games, and IMO they are horribly overpowered.

I hate the feeble implementation of "favoured enemy" in the PHB version though - this used to be a core feature of the class, it shouldn't have been nerfed into the ground.

If they wanted to go with "anyone can have a pet", it might have been nice to mention it in the DMG....


----------



## Pauln6 (Jul 29, 2018)

So if they aren't going to revise it, what minor tweaks can we make to at least improve them slightly.

For my part, giving rangers advantage on initiative the first round of combat in their favoured terrain looks fine as does +2 damage to their favoured enemies.  I think allowing them to know Hunter's Mark without taking up a spell slot is a good shout.  Allowing them to ignore natural difficult terrain in favoured terrain should be OK as a higher level class feature. 

For Beast Masters,  allowing them a Revivify Beast spell is a popular choice,  as is sharing hit dice while resting i.e. Damage is restored to both Ranger and beast equally.   Allowing the beast to train in two skills seems like a fun idea.  Maybe adding half proficiency bonus to untrained saves is a good compromise?  Allow Hunter's Mark to add to the Beast's damage as well as the Ranger.

Would they be tiny tweaks to help if not fix a few of the issues?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 29, 2018)

Huh.  Different strokes I guess.  I've seen multiple revised rangers in my games.  We've had four or five of the hunter rangers and one beast master.  All worked pretty much as expected and no problems.  

Not sure what the problem is.


----------



## Ratskinner (Jul 29, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Huh.  Different strokes I guess.  I've seen multiple revised rangers in my games.  We've had four or five of the hunter rangers and one beast master.  All worked pretty much as expected and no problems.
> 
> Not sure what the problem is.



This is my experience as well. The Paladin on the other hand...


----------



## Eric V (Jul 29, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Their success is getting to their heads with that dismissive and condescending tweet.




You got that vibe from that tweet too, huh?

It's too bad.  Revised Ranger was definitely a step in the right direction.  Fortunately, it's finished enough for some minor tweeks.

Makes me less than confident about what they consider "fine" for a class moving forward...


----------



## OB1 (Jul 29, 2018)

Eric V said:


> Makes me less than confident about what they consider "fine" for a class moving forward...




Makes me much MORE confident, as they are making their decision off of actually data and play testing, rather than freaking out about what a small number of loud voices on the internet says about it.  More companies these days would do well to take a lesson from WoTC in that regard.

Is Ranger one of the weaker DPR options?  Sure, but D&D isn't so finely balanced that it makes a difference in play.  You could have a party of 4 rangers and they would be fine in keeping up with level appropriate CR, encounters and encounter days.  

The Hunter Ranger I DM for at 18th level has no problem shining multiple times every session (and rarely casts hunter's mark, there are more interesting things for him to do with his slots).


----------



## Jester David (Jul 29, 2018)

When I added the revised ranger playtest to my game, two players immediately dipped. Which, I think says something about the ranger at level 1-3.

Looking at the PHB ranger, it really is unappealing at first level. Fighters get Second Wind and a Fighting Style, barbarians get Rage, rogues get Sneak Attack, paladins get nothing offensive but can heal, and rangers... Like the paladin, the rangers offence comes later, as both get Fighting Style at level 2. But while the paladin gets smite, the ranger gets... nothing. Favoured Enemy is an out-of-combat power, as is Natural Explorer, and they get no boost at second level. It's a harsh few couple levels.
But when you give it advantage to initiative _and_ advantage on creatures that haven't acted yet, that's a solid bump for a class.

The beast master... that does need a little tweak. 
The problem comes down to hit points: damage increased by 5 points per CR as does a wizard's hp with a Con of 12. At 4 hp per level, the beast is squishier than a wizard. And as it's Hit Dice are static, it cannot heal and is a drain on party resources. *The fix: *the beast gains an additional Hit Dice for each ranger level beyond 3 its master has. Then make it automatically stabilise when it drops to 0 and you're golden.


----------



## jgsugden (Jul 29, 2018)

Jester David said:


> There's always going to be a "last place". One class is always going to end up being the least popular or seen as the least powerful.
> If they "fix" the ranger, then someone else just takes its place.



And?  If you are bleeding heavily from three wounds, do you decide not to bandage the worst of them because the second worst would then be the worst?  Of course not.  You bandage because it helps improve the situation.







> Plus, it was really an issue in 2015 when the older players and grognards were a larger percentage of the audience. The optimizers who looked and the ranger and found it unappealing. Now, a couple years and several million new players later, that segment of the audience is a much smaller minority. And the percentage of the audience that is happy with the ranger and is playing it as-is has increased.



I think your assumption that new players are not optimizers is a bit hilarious given my experience.  Some definitely are.  I would not say the percentages have changed with the introduction of new players.

Regardless, my points were:

1.) Having it be played does not mean it is not going to benefit from an improvement to the mechanics.
2.) While an improvement to the mechanics is not necessary to have fun playing the class, the balance of the class would still benefit from it.

Both of those statements are true.

I'd be interested to see someone post what they consider to be an overpowered revised ranger.... I have yet to see one.


----------



## CTurbo (Jul 29, 2018)

jgsugden said:


> I'd be interested to see someone post what they consider to be an overpowered revised ranger.... I have yet to see one.





I'm not one of the people that think the Revised Ranger is overpowered as in so strong it's broken and needs to be taken down a notch.... but I do think they went overboard "fixing" the phb Ranger and my biggest issue with the Revised version is how incredibly front loaded it is. They took Natural Explorer too far IMO, and being able to select "humanoids" as your Favored Enemy is too broad. I think you should be able to pick 2 or 3 specific enemies. The phb's Favored Enemy is too weak. Same thing with the phb's Favored Terrain. You should get to pick 2 or 3. Choosing 1 is just not good enough. 

The Revised Ranger is still below the Paladin as somebody mentioned above.


Back to the phb Ranger again, I do think it's a bit weak, but I don't think it's so bad that it's not playable. I do agree that the Beastmaster got shafted a bit, and the 14th level Vanish comes on way too late, and lets not forget Foe Slayer which is just a terrible capstone.


----------



## DeanP (Jul 29, 2018)

I like the Revised Ranger. It's a more enjoyable version of the class and I'm keeping it.


----------



## Laurefindel (Jul 29, 2018)

jgsugden said:


> I'd be interested to see someone post what they consider to be an overpowered revised ranger.... I have yet to see one.




In combat? Not many are considering overpowered. But it turned the "ranger is good at exploration pillar of the game" to "ranger basically removes the _exploration_ part of the exploration pillar of the game".

Natural Awareness went from a weak ability to a DM's nightmare, grinding the game to a halt as the DM figures out EVERYTHING in miles around the ranger, and leading to the inevitable "hey! you didn't mention _that_ when I used natural awareness!"

I consider the revised ranger to be overpowered, even if it's comparable to other characters once the initiative is rolled.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 29, 2018)

jgsugden said:


> And?  If you are bleeding heavily from three wounds, do you decide not to bandage the worst of them because the second worst would then be the worst?  Of course not.  You bandage because it helps improve the situation.



But if you're bleeding heavily, you don't just bandage the worst one. You start there and bandage all the wounds.
Which is part of the issue. If you "improve" one class, will there suddenly be pressure to make changes to other classes or problems in the game. 

This also assumes that introducing a second version of the ranger will "fix" things and not cause more confusion at tables. Or tension in games when DMs don't allow it. Are the problems it creates greater than the problems it solves? 

There are two variant rangers by WotC already out there. There are dozens on the DMsGuild. If someone isn't happy they can easily "fix" things on their own, picking and choosing elements. 



jgsugden said:


> I think your assumption that new players are not optimizers is a bit hilarious given my experience.  Some definitely are.  I would not say the percentages have changed with the introduction of new players.



Oh, there absolutely are.
But is there the same percentage as older fans? I think so. The fans who got into the game via streaming are a lot more focused on roleplaying, character, and story. There's a lot more interest in those aspects of D&D than the crunchy building. 
And, most importantly, are the waves of new fans as vocal about their dislike of the ranger? And has the percentage of dissatisfied fans stayed the same or decreased? 

But the above is irrelevant. As Crawford points out, despite the ranger being the "worst" class it is NOT the least played class. So many, many people are happy with the class. And changing the class risks making them unhappy or causing issues at their table. 
So when you poll the entire audience, the ranger comes out at the bottom. But when people actually make characters, the optimizers don't just avoid the ranger, they avoid all the bottom tier classes, while the remaining 2/3rds or 3/4s of the audience is happy to consider the ranger. 


The class is getting played, which means the problem is not a _real _issue so much as a _theoretical _issue. Which is the key difference and distinction between something that is a problem in white room design and message board theorycraft and something that is a problem in the real world. Here, on ENWorld, the ranger is broken. Out in actual games, _four other classes_ are more of a problem as they're the ones that aren't seeing play.  




jgsugden said:


> 1.) Having it be played does not mean it is not going to benefit from an improvement to the mechanics.



Yes... but you could say that about all the classes. 
Way of the Four Elements could be fixed. Fighter subclasses could be revised for flavour. The barbarian's exhaustion mechanic could be revisited. The wild mage is unpopular. Plus several feats are seen as problematic, several spells are too strong or weak. 



jgsugden said:


> 2.) While an improvement to the mechanics is not necessary to have fun playing the class, the balance of the class would still benefit from it.



Again, this could be said about many features and options in the game.

It's almost like perfect balance is impossible and they could spend years revising and tweaking mechanics to make things more balanced and again to make things more fun. 
Only to have none of that matter at all because the same number of players will say "Imma gonna play Strider," and roll a ranger irregardless of the mechanics and changes.



jgsugden said:


> I'd be interested to see someone post what they consider to be an overpowered revised ranger.... I have yet to see one.



Halfling on a riding dog two-weapon fighting with lances. Two to three attacks dealing 1d12 damage plus _hunter's mark_ with 40 foot movement. 
And at 7th level it can move 20 feet, you can attack, and then it can Disengage and move back 20 feet.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jul 29, 2018)

If anyone really needs a "fixed" ranger, you can do searches on DMsGuild and/or the UnearthedArcana subreddit and find all the fixed rangers you need.

Yes, if you are a "Has to be AL legal!" type of player, you're SOL...  but for the rest of you, you have plenty of options.

Search for the "consensus ranger" on Reddit and you'll find a pretty good one IMO.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 29, 2018)

As Defcon 1 mentions: 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bw4_sxykbTWcWWxHaWFXX3Y5TFU


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 29, 2018)

OB1 said:


> Makes me much MORE confident, as they are making their decision off of actually data and play testing, rather than freaking out about what a small number of loud voices on the internet says about it.  More companies these days would do well to take a lesson from WoTC in that regard.
> 
> Is Ranger one of the weaker DPR options?  Sure, but D&D isn't so finely balanced that it makes a difference in play.  You could have a party of 4 rangers and they would be fine in keeping up with level appropriate CR, encounters and encounter days.



That is a huge straw man!

Nobody is EVER concerned about the group's ability to survive adventures.

Everything is about the balance within the group - that everyone shares the spotlight. 

But all of that still dismiss a very real concern: that a pet without its own action is a shirty shirty implementation that must be upgraded.

Being told "buy an animal" is a slap in the face.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 29, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Well, frak them.
> 
> The PHB Beastmaster is useless and a pet without its own action is shíte.
> 
> Their success is getting to their heads with that dismissive and condescending tweet.




We have one in the party. He's not useless. If you can't make use of them, that's something you might want to work on. Or not.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jul 29, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> That is a huge straw man!
> 
> Nobody is EVER concerned about the group's ability to survive adventures.
> 
> ...




Yep.  Hurts, don't it?  You should probably quit playing 5E so it doesn't happen again.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 29, 2018)

Folks, don't escalate this into rudeness or hyperbole, hm?  Thanks.


----------



## AmerginLiath (Jul 29, 2018)

I wouldn’t be surprised to see another “pet” subclass release for the Ranger at some point to supplement the Beastmaster, just as the Zealot Barbarian sort of supplements the Berserker (filling a similar role/style, but coming from a different narrative place). It’s probably just a matter of when they come up with a good subclass that is both mechanically and stylistically distinctive enough while still appealing to that playstyle.


----------



## jgsugden (Jul 29, 2018)

Jester David said:


> But if you're bleeding heavily, you don't just bandage the worst one. You start there and bandage all the wounds.



Yes.  You fix/address the heavy wounds...  the wounds worthy of being addressed...


> Which is part of the issue. If you "improve" one class, will there suddenly be pressure to make changes to other classes or problems in the game.



Just like they did in 3.5, which was considered a major improvement in the play experience at the time.  People, generally, loved it.  However, 5E doesn't have as many imbalances to address as 3E did.


> This also assumes that introducing a second version of the ranger will "fix" things and not cause more confusion at tables. Or tension in games when DMs don't allow it. Are the problems it creates greater than the problems it solves?



If they introduce the revisions as options you can select - as in take what is in the PHB or gain this - well, we've seen it dozens of times already.  No problem. 







> There are two variant rangers by WotC already out there. There are dozens on the DMsGuild. If someone isn't happy they can easily "fix" things on their own, picking and choosing elements.



Insert AL argument here, and note that the problem you just raised - about whether a DM and player will agree on including it - is much worse with ALand homebrew materials.







> Oh, there absolutely are.
> But is there the same percentage as older fans? I think so. The fans who got into the game via streaming are a lot more focused on roleplaying, character, and story. There's a lot more interest in those aspects of D&D than the crunchy building.
> And, most importantly, are the waves of new fans as vocal about their dislike of the ranger? And has the percentage of dissatisfied fans stayed the same or decreased?



Naturally decreased because those most offended are using the UA article ranger.  Less people complain about leaky tires that are patched... but it is still just a patch. 







> But the above is irrelevant. As Crawford points out, despite the ranger being the "worst" class it is NOT the least played class. So many, many people are happy with the class. And changing the class risks making them unhappy or causing issues at their table.
> So when you poll the entire audience, the ranger comes out at the bottom. But when people actually make characters, the optimizers don't just avoid the ranger, they avoid all the bottom tier classes, while the remaining 2/3rds or 3/4s of the audience is happy to consider the ranger.



See my above argument.  The play experience would be benefitted by an improvement to the class.  If all your friends are jumping off a bridge, does it make the bride jump a good plan?







> The class is getting played, which means the problem is not a _real _issue so much as a _theoretical _issue. Which is the key difference and distinction between something that is a problem in white room design and message board theorycraft and something that is a problem in the real world. Here, on ENWorld, the ranger is broken. Out in actual games, _four other classes_ are more of a problem as they're the ones that aren't seeing play.



But can we approve the play experience for this iconic class?







> Yes... but you could say that about all the classes.
> Way of the Four Elements could be fixed. Fighter subclasses could be revised for flavour. The barbarian's exhaustion mechanic could be revisited. The wild mage is unpopular. Plus several feats are seen as problematic, several spells are too strong or weak.



While I do not agree with all of those statements (wild mage gets a lot of play in my campaigns - I have not seen metrics indicating it is less often used in other games) - Improving the play experience is a good idea when it can be improved. 







> Again, this could be said about many features and options in the game.



3.5 was widely accepted as a massive improvement in the play experience.  You could do it on a lesser path here by introducing new options and have a lot of happy players.







> It's almost like perfect balance is impossible and they could spend years revising and tweaking mechanics to make things more balanced and again to make things more fun.
> Only to have none of that matter at all because the same number of players will say "Imma gonna play Strider," and roll a ranger irregardless of the mechanics and changes.



And if that player has a better experience because the mechanics work better?  WIN. It is an iconic class.  Peopl want to play the iconic class.  If they play it despite the mechanics, there is room for improvement.


> Halfling on a riding dog two-weapon fighting with lances. Two to three attacks dealing 1d12 damage plus _hunter's mark_ with 40 foot movement.



Almost as good as a barbarian with GWF ... only about 10 damage per strike less.







> And at 7th level it can move 20 feet, you can attack, and then it can Disengage and move back 20 feet.



And monsters move up to it and hit it?  That is not overpowered.  If you put that 7th level down on paper and compare it to a polearm fighter, a GWM barbarian, or a high defense paladin of similar level you'll find it inferior.  And, quite frankly, a bit odd.  Optimizers that believed it to be great might play it... but those are bad optimizers.  I doubt anyone else - outside of a really silly player - would think two lances on a halfling makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Eric V (Jul 29, 2018)

OB1 said:


> Makes me much MORE confident, as they are making their decision off of actually data and play testing, rather than freaking out about what a small number of loud voices on the internet says about it.  More companies these days would do well to take a lesson from WoTC in that regard.
> 
> Is Ranger one of the weaker DPR options?  Sure, but D&D isn't so finely balanced that it makes a difference in play.  You could have a party of 4 rangers and they would be fine in keeping up with level appropriate CR, encounters and encounter days.
> 
> The Hunter Ranger I DM for at 18th level has no problem shining multiple times every session (and rarely casts hunter's mark, there are more interesting things for him to do with his slots).




Oh, I didn't realize you had anecdotal evidence.  Guess there's nothing to discuss, then.


----------



## lkj (Jul 29, 2018)

I suspect that it won't make much of a difference to this discussion. But Jeremy didn't say they weren't still considering adding options to the PHB ranger:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1023354199646527488

"Alternate features for multiple classes are still a possibility, but we want to do more research before we invest time in them. We don’t want our design to chase phantoms but real desires held by a large number of players."

This is in line with Mearls comment that they were going to do another survey this fall before deciding how to move forward. So alternative class features (and not just for Ranger) are still on the table. The only firm decision seems to be that they won't release an entirely new build.

AD


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 29, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> We have one in the party. He's not useless. If you can't make use of them, that's something you might want to work on. Or not.



You did not try to deny the "pet without an action" bit.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 29, 2018)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Yep.  Hurts, don't it?  You should probably quit playing 5E so it doesn't happen again.



removed because I saw the mod post, but don't think you did not cross that line.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 29, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> You did not try to deny the "pet without an action" bit.




That was part of "not useless". He uses his pet all the time. It depends on the circumstances, but it's very useful in the game for us. You should try it. Get creative.

For example, do things which are aided by someone else attacking next to you. Like take sentinel, and use your pets attacks to trigger your sentinel attacks. 

Or use a net - which normally means you can only use one attack action but in this case it's not an attack action to have your pet attack.  

Or be a magic archer. Starting at 5th level, whenever you command your beast to attack you get to make one free weapon attack. To make the most of this attack, pair it with spells like ensnaring strike, hail of thorns, or lightning arrow. These require a bonus action to cast, but you do not need to use the Attack action to trigger them.  

Or try a Duelist (DEX with rapier). Use a Giant Badger as a pet in early levels (the multiattack + the beastmaster bonuses is pretty gnarly) and then switch to a Wolf at Level 5 for the potential synergy of the Wolf knocking the target prone.

Halflings and gnomes can ride the medium sized pets. The mastiff is in the RAW category allowing small PCs to ride with a saddle. So you can take the mounted combatant feat and this will generally make you more mobile than your team, except monks, and you can possibly get flying mounts earlier than other players which just makes you stupidly safe in fights.

I've read about this build: Archery Fighting Style, A companion with Flyby, Sharpshooter, Level 7. Animal flies to the enemy, helps as a bonus action. You fire at the -5 penalty helped by the +2 from Archery and advantage granted by the beast. Enjoy your +10 damage.

The pets are disposable. They can be used for a utility function. You have spells that help you befriend an animal like Animal Friendship and Speak with Animals, and bring several potential pets with you while only commanding one. 

There are so many things you can do with this class. It just takes a lot of creativity. There are some good guides out there to help figure it out though.


----------



## Satyrn (Jul 29, 2018)

Eric V said:


> Oh, I didn't realize you had anecdotal evidence.  Guess there's nothing to discuss, then.




Well, he did mention the ranger doing interesting things. That might be, uh, interesting to discuss.

But I'm really replying to say that I like reading about other posters' experiences at the table. And I find it kind of weird that you're dismissing somebody's experiences as not worth discussing.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 29, 2018)

jgsugden said:


> Yes.  You fix/address the heavy wounds...  the wounds worthy of being addressed...



But who decides what is a “heavy wound”?



jgsugden said:


> Just like they did in 3.5, which was considered a major improvement in the play experience at the time.  People, generally, loved it.  However, 5E doesn't have as many imbalances to address as 3E did.



We must be remembering a different 3.5e. 

People hated having to buy the same rules again. Sales were half that of the 3.0 books. Games stores were saddles with numerous 3.0 books they couldn’t give away and many were driven out of business. And the audience was divided between those who updated and did not updated.

Doing it for a single class would be a terrible idea.

Heck, WotC isn’t even doing the Updates that 4e did, adjusting things for balance. Because people didn’t like that. 
If it’s not overtly broken and wrecking people’s campaigns _*it does not need to be fixed.*_ Great Weapon Fighting is more of an issue. 



jgsugden said:


> If they introduce the revisions as options you can select - as in take what is in the PHB or gain this - well, we've seen it dozens of times already.  No problem.



Except the options prior have been additive. They haven’t replaced content in people’s games. 

Also… not ever DM allows the newest accessories. Many just play PHB only games. So yeah, that does cause issues. And making an optional “core” element will cause tension and friction at the tables.



jgsugden said:


> Insert AL argument here, and note that the problem you just raised - about whether a DM and player will agree on including it - is much worse with AL and homebrew materials.



Adventurer’s League is irrelevant.

There are less than 2500 Wizards Play Network stores running AL in North America. Less than 0.5% if games are AL. And, of those, only a fraction will play rangers. And only a fraction of that fraction of those will want to play the ranger but not like it.
It’s an irrelevant number. 

There are likely more people playing online via Rol20 and Fantasy Grounds. You’re better off asking “but what about the VTT?!?l” Because the tabletops suddenly have to worry about adding a new ranger to their systems, coding alternate class features, and somehow paying for that development time without charging for a second version of the ranger. Plus confusion from players over how their class might have been stealth updated. 

VTT are ten times as relevant as Adventurer’s League. 
(Literally. Roll20 alone has 36k games.)



jgsugden said:


> See my above argument.  The play experience would be benefitted by an improvement to the class.



See my argument about all the many, many things that could be changed for the “play experience”.

Singling out the ranger is largely arbitrary. 
Seriously. Why the ranger? Well, it’s the least well received when you poll the entire audience and ask how happy they are. 
But why not fix the class that is actually played less? That seems more relevant. Or the feats played least? The spells cast least? Why not fix the options considered overpowered, needing them a little? All those would be equally good for balance. 

You can make a case for any change.



jgsugden said:


> But can we approve the play experience for this iconic class?



Can we improve it? Sure. But, again, we can do the same thing for the fighter, monk, sorcerer, barbarian. Likely a few wizard and cleric options, 



jgsugden said:


> Improving the play experience is a good idea when it can be improved. 3.5 was widely accepted as a massive improvement in the play experience.



Again, by “widely accepted” you mean “less than half”.



jgsugden said:


> You could do it on a lesser path here by introducing new options and have a lot of happy players.



There _are_ new options. There are dozens. I linked a popular one above.



jgsugden said:


> And if that player has a better experience because the mechanics work better?  WIN. It is an iconic class.  Peopl want to play the iconic class.  If they play it despite the mechanics, there is room for improvement.



It’s not that the mechanics don’t work. They work just fine. It’s that the damage output doesn’t meet the output in a white room simulation. The class just doesn’t meet some arbitrary bar for optimizers. 

People HAVE an iconic class. And lots and lots of gamers are playing it and happy. Being in the top 66% of classes, likely one out of every three tables has a ranger. 
Because, brace yourself, not everyone cares about the mechanics. (I’d argue that most people don’t.) The tone and feel of the class is often more important. The story. And that works just fine.


----------



## Eric V (Jul 29, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> Well, he did mention the ranger doing interesting things. That might be, uh, interesting to discuss.
> 
> But I'm really replying to say that I like reading about other posters' experiences at the table. And I find it kind of weird that you're dismissing somebody's experiences as not worth discussing.




I don't think that's what I was doing.

What I was doing was saying that just because he has, at his table, a ranger that does interesting things, it doesn't mean the ranger isn't worth revising.  A lot of people think it's worth revising, and at one point WotC did too (preamble at the beginning of one of their UA articles on the ranger).  

Having anecdotal evidence of one interesting ranger doesn't render obsolete the need to see the mechanics of the class given another pass.

Nor does the flavour of the class being strong obsolete the need to see the mechanics of the class given another pass; those are two completely separate issues.  I believe the ranger is popular due to its strong flavour.  When I compare it to other class, I -also- believe it to be subpar, mechanics-wise.

The idea of a revised ranger, therefore was appreciated.


----------



## Prakriti (Jul 29, 2018)

For all those who wanted a revised Ranger, I suggest waiting about twenty years for 6E.

Until then, enjoy the game as it is. It's pretty close to perfect.


----------



## Voort (Jul 30, 2018)

I got the new Ranger I wanted. It’s just a Rogue archetype now.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 30, 2018)

Let's see, since 5e came out:

12 level Dragonlance campaign - 1 hunter ranger - damage dealing star of the group behind the fire based sorcerer.

9 level Ravenloft campaign - 1 hunter ranger - dealt damage equal to the raging great weapon barbarian most of the time.

9 level Primeval Thule Campaign - 1 beast master Ranger - campaign features no core casters - BM ranger deals damage at least equal to every other fighter type in the group.

So, frankly, I'm not sure what you folks are seeing.  The ranger has been a pretty solid staple in our groups and fit in quite well.   

And, really, if their polling is showing that the ranger is being played in multiple groups and is not the bottom choice, then, why fix it?  Why not look at the actual bottom choices and fix those?

Or, better yet, give us a warlord.     X)


----------



## Gladius Legis (Jul 30, 2018)

Voort said:


> I got the new Ranger I wanted. It’s just a Rogue archetype now.




That unfortunately only gets good at Lv. 13.


----------



## Otterscrubber (Jul 30, 2018)

So just hopping on this thread and didn't even know there was a possibility of rangers being revised.  But I have to agree that rangers as a concept are so popular that they get played even if they aren't really that great.  

I wish I could be more specific, but when I play a ranger in any edition including 5e, something just feels like it's "missing" and that any other class would be more enjoyable to actually play.  If I want to be a bow guy, then it's usually better to be a fighter who uses a bow, if I want to be a caster (even a hybrid one) there are better caster classes and if I want to be a melee class there are several other classes that are better or more fun.  They don't really outdo any other class in just about any other area except in very niche circumstances.  Then I spend my time playing one hoping these niche situations come up rather than playing a class that has more options in and out of combat in general.  So I often feel like I didn't contribute as much during a session.  It's kind of a general feeling and not very helpful as I can't put my finger on any one thing, but it's there.

Maybe I'm not playing it right but I've been playing since the mid 80s and I've always given rangers a try with different builds.  Never quite makes me feel like I think it will.


----------



## Blue (Jul 30, 2018)

Jester David said:


> There's always going to be a "last place". One class is always going to end up being the least popular or seen as the least powerful.
> If they "fix" the ranger, then someone else just takes its place.




This is true but unfortunately irrelevant.

I can have a bunch of classes near each other in terms of balance, and one will be last place.  I can have a bunch of classes all over the map in terms of balance and there will be a last place.  Last place has nothing to do with it, it's tightness of grouping that promotes balance between classes.

Now, if you think the ranger is "close enough", that's relevant - that's a tight grouping.  If someone thinks the ranger is nigh unplayable that's a very loose grouping.  But being in last has little to do with it.


----------



## jodyjohnson (Jul 30, 2018)

Doesn't look like an official warlord or companion/mount upgrade rules are in the cards.  

I still think some general optional rules in an upcoming book could get us close enough until 6th edition.

(HD bumps for significant NPCs and a general 'free' action economy equivalent to the Mount action economy which includes the Beastmaster companion).


----------



## MoonSong (Jul 30, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Let's see, since 5e came out:
> 
> 12 level Dragonlance campaign - 1 hunter ranger - damage dealing star of the group behind the fire based sorcerer.
> 
> ...




You lost me at the very first line, but then you won me over with the W word. Well played Hussar-Sempai, well played.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 30, 2018)

Blue said:


> This is true but unfortunately irrelevant.
> 
> I can have a bunch of classes near each other in terms of balance, and one will be last place.  I can have a bunch of classes all over the map in terms of balance and there will be a last place.  Last place has nothing to do with it, it's tightness of grouping that promotes balance between classes.
> 
> Now, if you think the ranger is "close enough", that's relevant - that's a tight grouping.  If someone thinks the ranger is nigh unplayable that's a very loose grouping.  But being in last has little to do with it.



But balance was never an issue. It wasn’t a question. They never ranked the class by their approximate DPR. How well the classes do in Excel math comparison. 

They asked people how satisfied they were with the classes.  Some of the unsatisfied people were likely unhappy because of balance. Others likely because it had spells. Others might not have liked the implementation compared to past rangers. And many likely just weren’t ranger fans to begin with.


But, at the end of the day, more people are playing the ranger than the other classes that are “better” in term of balance. And that’s what matters. It’s the “balance” that’s irrelevant,


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 30, 2018)

Jester David said:


> There's always going to be a "last place". One class is always going to end up being the least popular or seen as the least powerful.
> If they "fix" the ranger, then someone else just takes its place.
> 
> Plus, it was really an issue in 2015 when the older players and grognards were a larger percentage of the audience. The optimizers who looked and the ranger and found it unappealing. Now, a couple years and several million new players later, that segment of the audience is a much smaller minority. And the percentage of the audience that is happy with the ranger and is playing it as-is has increased.




Maybe I’m reading this wrong, but it seems to infer that older players and grognards are the biggest optimizers, and the biggest complainers of the ranger when it came out. I like to see your evidence of that, because it seems completely wrong to me. 

In fact, if I had to pick one, I’d say optimizers really came into play in 3e because the system was designed to cater to that playstyle. That’s the first edition when there was a focus on builds and was the first edition that brought a lot more customization to the classes, and was almost assumed every PC would be multiclassed with things like prestige classes. 

Needless to say, I also disagree with your later assertion that new players like story more than older players. I’d like to see some evidence for that as well. IME, the number of players who liked story, mechanics, or other aspects have been pretty much the same throughout the years.


----------



## Horwath (Jul 30, 2018)

Voort said:


> I got the new Ranger I wanted. It’s just a Rogue archetype now.




3 Levels of rogue-scout, then fighter-battlemaster from there. The perfect "ranger".


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 30, 2018)

If you want to fix the ranger, make hunter's mark apply to favoured enemies automatically.
I think this is a nice and balanced way of improving the ranger. That frees up a spell slot against favoured enemies and gives a substantial benefit.


----------



## Horwath (Jul 30, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> If you want to fix the ranger, make hunter's mark apply to favoured enemies automatically.
> I think this is a nice and balanced way of improving the ranger. That frees up a spell slot against favoured enemies and gives a substantial benefit.




That is even worse.

Favored enemy/terrain is already heavy in DM's charity box. That is, DM has to put encounters especially for you, so you can use your class features.

Best solution would be either remove favorite enemy/terrain or work it to be more "global" effect.

3rd level rogue(scout) feature is perfect for global favorite terrain feature for ranger.


Favorite enemy could give global training depending on some signature attack/defense of the favorite enemy.

I.E. favotite enemy: Dragons, could give advantage vs. AoE attacks and advantage vs. fear.

Undead: advantage vs. life/energy drain. Resistance vs. necrotic damage.

etc...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 30, 2018)

Horwath said:


> That is even worse.
> 
> Favored enemy/terrain is already heavy in DM's charity box. That is, DM has to put encounters especially for you, so you can use your class features.
> 
> ...




What you suggest was actually one of my favourite things in the ranger playtest. Favoured enemy was the ranger path. Those abilities were decoupled from favoured enemy and evolved into the hunter where you chose the benefits one by one. And that was a bad idea in hindsight.

My "fix" should only adress the fact that people regard hunters mark as a must and think favoured enemy does give no benefit at all damage wise at least.
My solution makes combat against favoured enemies easier since it frees up your concentration and a bonus action. But it does not stack with hunter's mark and thus this "fix" more or less power neutral. (You could require concentration to make it really power neutral besides the saved slot).

The second fix is to allow downtime to learn new terrain and favoured enemies within a few days. Maybe have only the allowed numbers active at a time and require the ranger to get accustomed to other terrains within a few days.


----------



## The Grassy Gnoll (Jul 30, 2018)

(Whispers) I really like the Ranger as it is. Beastmaster, too.


----------



## Ancalagon (Jul 30, 2018)

I can't claim much "ranger experience" ...

BUT:

1:  In my 5e game, we don't have a ranger.  But we do have a paladin (order of the ancient) with the "outlander" background, and although he can't scout worth a damn, it's almost as good as having a ranger on board.

2:  I played one for a single level in a pbp game that went nowhere.   Despite him being built "wrong"  (gnome shield and board melee fighter), Darwinimar held his own and was fun to play.   This was a "toned down revised ranger" incidentally.


I think the ranger is doing OK, and that the "best" one is the revised version toned down.  BUT on the other hand, because of the outlander background, a pseudo-ranger is very easy to build.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 30, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> Maybe I’m reading this wrong, but it seems to infer that older players and grognards are the biggest optimizers, and the biggest complainers of the ranger when it came out. I like to see your evidence of that, because it seems completely wrong to me.
> 
> In fact, if I had to pick one, I’d say optimizers really came into play in 3e because the system was designed to cater to that playstyle. That’s the first edition when there was a focus on builds and was the first edition that brought a lot more customization to the classes, and was almost assumed every PC would be multiclassed with things like prestige classes.



Brace yourself here: fans of 3e and 4e are “grognards” now. They _are_ older players. 



Sacrosanct said:


> Needless to say, I also disagree with your later assertion that new players like story more than older players. I’d like to see some evidence for that as well. IME, the number of players who liked story, mechanics, or other aspects have been pretty much the same throughout the years.



Streaming has brought in staggering numbers of new players and raised new awareness of the game. And one major element of streaming games is a focus on story and roleplaying. Many have the players speaking in-character for most of the session.

I’m sure loads also love the mechanics and crunch too, but the ratios are likely different.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 30, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Brace yourself here: fans of 3e and 4e are “grognards” now. They _are_ older players.




4e was 10 years ago. Someone who might have started at 15 and is now 25 is not an older player.  Christ, my kid is older than that.  Or grognard.  Neither is someone who is 30 and was a teen when 3e came out.  By no reasonable measurement in our society is a person considered "older" in an activity when they are in their 30s, when there are people in their 60s doing the same activity.  It's like calling Britney Spears oldies music. 



> Streaming has brought in staggering numbers of new players and raised new awareness of the game. And one major element of streaming games is a focus on story and roleplaying. Many have the players speaking in-character for most of the session.
> 
> I’m sure loads also love the mechanics and crunch too, but the ratios are likely different.




There was no streaming in the 80s when D&D "brought in staggering numbers of new players and raised awareness of the game".  So....your logic seems to be faulty. Besides, it sort of defeats the purpose of what a role playing game was, from the beginning.  For players to recreate and/or tell their own fantastical fantasy stories.  There might not have been streaming, but there was a D&D cartoon, and D&D choose your own adventures books (both of which were all about stories, literally, and not mechanics).  Not to mention all the other fantasy movies and literature that had already been our there.  Heck, the 80s was _full_ of fantasy movies coming out left and right, and not just big named ones like Conan, Excalibur, or Ladyhawke, or even party based adventures like Goonies, but with campy S&S movies like Hawk the Slayer, Sword and the Sorcerer, Krull, Deathstalker I-IV, Barbarians, etc, etc.

So no, I don't find streaming to be a compelling proof that more players like stories now than before.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 30, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> 4e was 10 years ago. Someone who might have started at 15 and is now 25 is not an older player.  Christ, my kid is older than that.  Or grognard.  Neither is someone who is 30 and was a teen when 3e came out.  By no reasonable measurement in our society is a person considered "older" in an activity when they are in their 30s, when there are people in their 60s doing the same activity.  It's like calling Britney Spears oldies music.



Are the people who got started in 3e and 4e more advanced in years than the average new player now? Congrats, they are literally _older_ than the current new generation. Not "old". Old_er_.
If someone was 15 when 3e came out, they're 33 now. To fifteen-year-old them, that would be _ancient_. 

And, again, brace yourself. The "oldies" stations I grew up played songs from the '60s and '70s. Twenty years earlier. Stations playing Britney now are playing songs from... twenty years ago. She is *technically* oldies, except  "Oldies" has come to mean music from a particular era, and less the age of the music. So modern "oldies" stations are the ones advertising "the best of the '80s and '90s". 
No station playing "modern pop" is going to touch her except in an ironic way. 


But if it makes you feel better, replace "older" with "established". 



Sacrosanct said:


> There was no streaming in the 80s when D&D "brought in staggering numbers of new players and raised awareness of the game".  So....your logic seems to be faulty.



How? 
The same event can have different causes. 

Streaming has helped cause the resurgence of the last couple years, and word-of-mouth caused it in the '80s. Different causes, same result. 



Sacrosanct said:


> Besides, it sort of defeats the purpose of what a role playing game was, from the beginning.  For players to recreate and/or tell their own fantastical fantasy stories.  There might not have been streaming, but there was a D&D cartoon, and D&D choose your own adventures books (both of which were all about stories, literally, and not mechanics).  Not to mention all the other fantasy movies and literature that had already been our there.  Heck, the 80s was _full_ of fantasy movies coming out left and right, and not just big named ones like Conan, Excalibur, or Ladyhawke, or even party based adventures like Goonies, but with campy S&S movies like Hawk the Slayer, Sword and the Sorcerer, Krull, Deathstalker I-IV, Barbarians, etc, etc.



Most of your examples were around _before_ 3e when D&D went extra-crunchy. 

I'll totally buy the argument that D&D was more about the story and roleplaying in the '80s as well. But since then D&D went hard into the rules and "balance" became a primary concern in a way that it simply wasn't in 1e and 2e. And now it's shifted back to being a secondary concern.



Sacrosanct said:


> So no, I don't find streaming to be a compelling proof that more players like stories now than before.



I'd argue they like them better than the prior two generations of gamers.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 30, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Are the people who got started in 3e and 4e more advanced in years than the average new player now? Congrats, they are literally _older_ than the current new generation. Not "old". Old_er_.
> If someone was 15 when 3e came out, they're 33 now. To fifteen-year-old them, that would be _ancient_.
> 
> And, again, brace yourself. The "oldies" stations I grew up played songs from the '60s and '70s. Twenty years earlier. Stations playing Britney now are playing songs from... twenty years ago. She is *technically* oldies, except  "Oldies" has come to mean music from a particular era, and less the age of the music. So modern "oldies" stations are the ones advertising "the best of the '80s and '90s".
> ...




The term you used was grognard along with older.  I'm not buying the "I just meant technically older than people starting today" argument.  Grognard has a common definition. Just like oldies has come to represent as certain era, so has grognard. 



> How?
> The same event can have different causes.
> 
> Streaming has helped cause the resurgence of the last couple years, and word-of-mouth caused it in the '80s. Different causes, same result.
> ...




That's my point.  Your argument was that because of streaming, which "brought in staggering numbers of new players and raised awareness of the game", players today care more about story than previous eras.  Not only haven't you shown any proof of correlation to that, but my point was that the exact same thing, "brought in staggering numbers of new players and raised awareness of the game", happened in the 80s, so that seems like a very weak reason to base your position on.  I brought up all of those movies, because in the late 70s and 80s, gamers still have plenty of media that focused on fantasy stories long before streaming was a thing. I also disagree about different causes.  In both cases, it was established players giving a session to newer players.  In person versus seeing it online doesn't matter; the new player is seeing the exact same thing.  Watching a DM like Mercer play in person versus seeing him online has exactly zero impact on how I perceive the importance of story to the game.


----------



## Staccat0 (Jul 30, 2018)

Yeah I dunno man. 99% of hand-wringing about 5e is very silly and honestly I think WOTC has a habit of making people into worse DMs by feeding into that hand-wringing. So I appreciate the idea that people should just look at the existing rules and make a ruling...

But the 5e Ranger is boring.

We’ve had one is basically every campaign and they always get fun stuff to do, but it always feels like you have to go out of your way to not make them play exactly like everyone else’s Ranger.

The logical conclusion (to me) has always been that Ranger should be a Subclass but nobody actually WANTS that.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 30, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> The term you used was grognard along with older.  I'm not buying the "I just meant technically older than people starting today" argument.  Grognard has a common definition. Just like oldies has come to represent as certain era, so has grognard.



Grognards are people who play older versions of games despite newer versions being available. Fans of 3e and4e would be “grognards” now...




Sacrosanct said:


> That's my point.  Your argument was that because of streaming, which "brought in staggering numbers of new players and raised awareness of the game", players today care more about story than previous eras.  Not only haven't you shown any proof of correlation to that, but my point was that the exact same thing, "brought in staggering numbers of new players and raised awareness of the game", happened in the 80s, so that seems like a very weak reason to base your position on.



Critical Role is massive. It’s had live viewing numbers in the six digits, and has even earned billboards. Their studio is lit by $30,000 lights. When the second campaign strarted, it caused a spike in people playing tieflings on DnDBeyond. Their campaign setting book is outselling some D&D books on Amazon. 
And that’s just the one show. There’s Dice Camera Action, Maze Arcana, Force Grey, and sooooo many more.
Streaming is HUGE.

WotC isn’t working with streamers for fun.



Sacrosanct said:


> I brought up all of those movies, because in the late 70s and 80s, gamers still have plenty of media that focused on fantasy stories long before streaming was a thing.



We had fantasy movies in the 2000. You might have heard of them. Lord of the Rings. Won a few Oscars, made a few careers. 
And yet that didn’t lead to a spike in D&D.



Sacrosanct said:


> I also disagree about different causes.  In both cases, it was established players giving a session to newer players.  In person versus seeing it online doesn't matter; the new player is seeing the exact same thing.  Watching a DM like Mercer play in person versus seeing him online has exactly zero impact on how I perceive the importance of story to the game.



There’s a *massive* difference in knowing someone who plays D&D and being able to google a video at any time . The hardest part of D&D has been explaining how the game works, and streamed games are amazing examples of actual play. You don’t need to find a friend to watch them play or hunt down a group to teach you this game you’ve heard about in passing or just seen on store shelves.

Also, the campaigns are different. Vastly. Watching a DM at home is a very different experienced. More cross table chatter and side conversations, and time spent taking recent films or about your day. A streamed show is two to four hours with much of that entirely in-character. Maybe a single short combat 

Which is my point. A whole new generation of gamers is being introduced and they view D&D primarily through the lense or long strengthens or role playing and talking in character rather than building a complex character for multiple battles or methodically working through a trap and puzzle filled funhouse dungeon.


----------



## Otterscrubber (Jul 30, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> If you want to fix the ranger, make hunter's mark apply to favoured enemies automatically.
> I think this is a nice and balanced way of improving the ranger. That frees up a spell slot against favoured enemies and gives a substantial benefit.




I like this idea, I found it weird that a favored enemy in 5e didn't really give you any combat benefits to fighting them.  Just super specific tracking info....which I felt was underwhelming for such a major (and iconic) class feature.


----------



## Eric V (Jul 30, 2018)

Jester David said:


> But, at the end of the day, more people are playing the ranger than the other classes that are “better” in term of balance. And that’s what matters. It’s the “balance” that’s irrelevant,




In the preamble to the Revised Ranger, they write: "in the past year, you've seen us try a number of new approaches to the ranger, all aimed at addressing the class's high levels of player dissatisfaction and its ranking as D&D's weakest class by a significant margin."

It seems weird to me that these two things (high levels of player dissatisfaction and ranking as weakest class) are apparently no longer of any concern...oh, well. It makes me wonder if they'll be of concern in future products as well, though.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 30, 2018)

Eric V said:


> In the preamble to the Revised Ranger, they write: "in the past year, you've seen us try a number of new approaches to the ranger, all aimed at addressing the class's high levels of player dissatisfaction and its ranking as D&D's weakest class by a significant margin."
> 
> It seems weird to me that these two things (high levels of player dissatisfaction and ranking as weakest class) are apparently no longer of any concern...oh, well. It makes me wonder if they'll be of concern in future products as well, though.




It first came up here: http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/ranger
September of 2015, based on surveys conducted earlier in 2015 or late 2014. 

It's not that audience dissatisfaction is not longer of any concern. Instead, it's almost as if the audience has changed in significant ways in the intervening three years and demographics have shifted... 
What seemed like a major concern at the launch of 5e turns out NOT to have been a deal-breaker after all.


----------



## Eric V (Jul 30, 2018)

Jester David said:


> It first came up here: http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/ranger
> September of 2015, based on surveys conducted earlier in 2015 or late 2014.
> 
> It's not that audience dissatisfaction is not longer of any concern. Instead, it's almost as if the audience has changed in significant ways in the intervening three years and demographics have shifted...
> What seemed like a major concern at the launch of 5e turns out NOT to have been a deal-breaker after all.




Ok, but didn't the revised Ranger come out in 2016?  It's been about 1.5 years...and the attitude towards the class has shifted that much?  Did they come out and say how it now ranks in player satisfaction and power ranking?

I dunno, seems weird.


----------



## nswanson27 (Jul 30, 2018)

bleh.... I was really looking forward to the revised ranger. A lot of it's mechanics right now is just fluffy junk and underpowered. I don't think Wotc did themselves any PR favors here on how they just "ended it" without a better explanation. Is "RP vaporware" a term?


----------



## Dispater (Jul 30, 2018)

None of this stuff would have been an issue if they had just designed a solid ranger and incorporated the survival aspects more solidly into the core mechanics. Survival and living of the land is the ranger's thing. The current one just felt like a watered down magic user. And who cares, the people who truly disagreed with the core rules have houseruled the ranger out of existence now anyway.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 30, 2018)

Eric V said:


> Ok, but didn't the revised Ranger come out in 2016?  It's been about 1.5 years...and the attitude towards the class has shifted that much?  Did they come out and say how it now ranks in player satisfaction and power ranking?
> 
> I dunno, seems weird.



Not really. 
They did a major revision in 2015, and based on the feedback from that pulled back from most of the changes to a much smaller revision. And based on the feedback from that, finishing the revision seemed to be a low priority. 
After all, it's a month away from two years and nothing has been done, and only small tweaks were needed to balance the revised ranger. Feedback clearly showed they were either not on the right track or it was not a priority.

And it's not that the attitudes to the class shifted. It's that the negative attitudes were always a vocal minority to begin with and any changes likely ended up upset more people than they satisfied, paired with an influx of people who are just fine with the ranger how it is.


----------



## Gadget (Jul 30, 2018)

Well, I can't say I'm surprised.  The demographics do seem to have changed a bit over the past couple of years, and WOTC is extremely reluctant to change, revise or errata any of the PHB material in an effort to keep it 'evergreen.'  

I've never cared for the Beastmaster, as I don't generally like "pet" classes, but I've thought the Hunter could use a couple of tweaks.  Like make their spellcasting follow the paladin model: they know all their spells and just get to choose how to fill out the slots.  Hunter's Mark feels like a class ability masquerading as a spell.  At least give them the ability to ignore concentration checks on the spell or something along those lines.  Unlike many others, I heartily approve of reducing "favored enemy" to a ribbon ability; that was an intentional design decision to get away from the mother-may-I feel of many abilities (though the whole 'favored terrain' feature does seem to double down on this).  The more generally applicable Colossus Slayer, Hoard Breaker, and Giant Killer are the real replacements for the favored enemy of yesteryear.


----------



## Valetudo (Jul 30, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> Maybe I’m reading this wrong, but it seems to infer that older players and grognards are the biggest optimizers, and the biggest complainers of the ranger when it came out. I like to see your evidence of that, because it seems completely wrong to me.
> 
> In fact, if I had to pick one, I’d say optimizers really came into play in 3e because the system was designed to cater to that playstyle. That’s the first edition when there was a focus on builds and was the first edition that brought a lot more customization to the classes, and was almost assumed every PC would be multiclassed with things like prestige classes.
> 
> Needless to say, I also disagree with your later assertion that new players like story more than older players. I’d like to see some evidence for that as well. IME, the number of players who liked story, mechanics, or other aspects have been pretty much the same throughout the years.



while I do agree with you that 3rd is where powergaming hit its stride, you cant really call 3rd edition players new or young anymore for the most part. They are more of gronards in some ways than adnd players.


----------



## lkj (Jul 30, 2018)

I think, perhaps relevant to this conversation, is that it's NOT that they are already certain that everyone is satisfied with the ranger and that they shouldn't offer adjustments. Rather, I think it's these factors:

1) The idea of having an alternate version of the Ranger has high potential to cause confusion among casual players, particularly if the alternative is strictly more effective. This became abundantly clear after they released that UA. (I think Crawford expresses that frustration in a tweet where he says something to the effect that he's glad to see idea of a completely alternate version of the class die.)  Therefore, before making any changes to a core class, they decided they needed to tread carefully. Do it in a way to minimize confusion. That's where the idea of alternate 'swappable' class features comes from. And once you've decided to do that for the ranger, why not consider it for other classes?

2) And since we're treading carefully, is the ranger so bad off that it really needs a fix? (I mean that as a real question, not a statement that it doesn't). Despite early feedback, plenty of people are playing the ranger. So it's probably not terrible. On top of that, we have a lot of new players since we first got our feedback. Also, we released Xanathar's with additional subclasses. So, maybe some of these issues have already been addressed by Xanathar's. And maybe the player base as a whole doesn't really see the problem.

So, given those things, what's the logical next step? It's to gather more ( and more up to date) data. Hence, they do a survey in the fall. They combine that with info from various other sources. Then they decide what to do. If anything.

To some extent I'm speculating. But it's informed speculation, as I'm only slightly extrapolating what the designers have said already. 

AD


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 30, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Grognards are people who play older versions of games despite newer versions being available. Fans of 3e and4e would be “grognards” now...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm not saying that twitch isn't big.  But you have yet to show any convincing argument that players today care more about story.  Watching a livestream, or ease of access to that information, doesn't prove it unless you can show that watching a D&D session in person is LESS about story, and good luck with that.  Bringing up crosstalk in no way means that gamers cared more about the mechanics of the game than story. 

And yes, I'm aware of fantasy movies in the 2000s.  I didn't say there weren't.  But in the early 80s, there was a huge resurgence in the number of fantasy movies/media that came out.  It was all over the place.  And for every reference to Amazon you make, I can come back and say that D&D books and boxed sets were in every mainstream store, like Krogers/Fred Meyer, and Toys 'r us.  There was a saturday morning cartoon.

So yes, streaming has helped grow the game, but there is no evidence that because of streaming, new gamers care more about story than older gamers did.  You're just guessing.


----------



## SkidAce (Jul 30, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Grognards are people who play older versions of games despite newer versions being available. Fans of 3e and4e would be “grognards” now...




Where did *that *definition come from?


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 30, 2018)

I swear, this conversation feels like a guy is saying, "I'm totally old school, because when I wanted to make a call, I had to flip my phone open first."  And everyone else is rolling their eyes because we had to actually go into the kitchen and spin the dial to each # we wanted in the phone #.  And stay in the kitchen for the whole conversation.


----------



## SkidAce (Jul 30, 2018)

Eric V said:


> In the preamble to the Revised Ranger, they write: "in the past year, you've seen us try a number of new approaches to the ranger, all aimed at addressing the class's high levels of player dissatisfaction and its ranking as D&D's weakest class by a significant margin."
> 
> It seems weird to me that these two things (high levels of player dissatisfaction and ranking as weakest class) are apparently no longer of any concern...oh, well. It makes me wonder if they'll be of concern in future products as well, though.




After seeing Crawford's tweet, I had gone back and noticed that also.

Thought about bringing it up, but its not that important an issue to me.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 30, 2018)

SkidAce said:


> Where did *that *definition come from?




https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grognard
https://www.definitions.net/definition/grognard
http://www.yourdictionary.com/grognard
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=grognard


----------



## SkidAce (Jul 30, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> I swear, this conversation feels like a guy is saying, "I'm totally old school, because when I wanted to make a call, I had to flip my phone open first."  And everyone else is rolling their eyes because we had to actually go into the kitchen and spin the dial to each # we wanted in the phone #.  And stay in the kitchen for the whole conversation.




Well to be honest, if I wanted to use the phone I had to wait until the neighbor got off the party line.....


hehe...


----------



## Satyrn (Jul 30, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> I swear, this conversation feels like a guy is saying, "I'm totally old school, because when I wanted to make a call, I had to flip my phone open first."  And everyone else is rolling their eyes because we had to actually go into the kitchen and spin the dial to each # we wanted in the phone #.  And stay in the kitchen for the whole conversation.




Ooh. I'm a grognard when it comes to phones.

Phonegnard?


----------



## SkidAce (Jul 30, 2018)

Jester David said:


> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grognard
> https://www.definitions.net/definition/grognard
> http://www.yourdictionary.com/grognard
> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=grognard




Fair enough... /thumbs up!

Guess I've been around so long all I thought applied was the grumpy complaining Napoleon Sgts part....


----------



## BookBarbarian (Jul 30, 2018)

Coming late in to the conversation on this one.

I've always found it wonky that Primeval Awareness gave more useful information if the Ranger was not in their favored terrain.

That was pretty much my beef with the class, but I'm probably forgetting something. I would love to see an alternate version of that feature. I don't need to revise the whole class for that.

Still reading Crawford tweet my initial response was "Then why did we waste 2 UA articles on this!" It's like they stirred up the hornets nest and now are trying to get all the hornets back inside.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 30, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> I'm not saying that twitch isn't big.  But you have yet to show any convincing argument that players today care more about story.  Watching a livestream, or ease of access to that information, doesn't prove it unless you can show that watching a D&D session in person is LESS about story, and good luck with that.  Bringing up crosstalk in no way means that gamers cared more about the mechanics of the game than story.
> ...
> So yes, streaming has helped grow the game, but there is no evidence that because of streaming, new gamers care more about story than older gamers did.  You're just guessing.




I'm making an _educated _guess. 

Gamers emulate their inspiration. Wargamers had a very competitive version of D&D where it was the players vs the DM and tournament style gameplay. Just like gamers inspired by a novel might try and tell a firm story with the PCs as protagonists or the gamer inspired by a videogame will use that as a basis. 

How else are gamers inspired by streaming going to approach the game? That's their basis for comparison. That's what they think D&D _is_. 
(Especially with a key WotC talking point being "we're all about the story in D&D".)


After all, is there a surge of interest in optimisation boards and guides? 
Is reddit.com/r/dnd/ or /dndnext/ full of builds and mechanics? Is the Facebook group filled with post after post of power gaming and encounter design?

The very fact that the "worst" class in the game (i.e. the one this thread is about) is not the least played class (or even the fourth least played class) speaks volumes.


----------



## ad_hoc (Jul 30, 2018)

Eric V said:


> Ok, but didn't the revised Ranger come out in 2016?  It's been about 1.5 years...and the attitude towards the class has shifted that much?  Did they come out and say how it now ranks in player satisfaction and power ranking?
> 
> I dunno, seems weird.




5e is now the most popular RPG ever and it is currently selling better than it did at launch.

Those sales are not coming from old hobby gamers...

(I also think that XGtE did a great job of giving the Ranger some good stuff. I love the Monster Hunter subclass and Zephyr's Strike is fantastic too)


----------



## Inchoroi (Jul 30, 2018)

Having had a player try both the PHB ranger and the revised ranger, they both work as long as you aren't trying to be a Beastmaster. If you try to be a beastmaster, it sucks. Your pet dies constantly, and then you're out the entire schtick of the character. 

For my purposes, I've actually considered adding regular Beastmaster into base Ranger class, and calling it a day. However, no one but one player likes the idea of having a pet, so I've had no need to thus far.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 30, 2018)

Jester David said:


> I'm making an _educated _guess.
> 
> Gamers emulate their inspiration. Wargamers had a very competitive version of D&D where it was the players vs the DM and tournament style gameplay. Just like gamers inspired by a novel might try and tell a firm story with the PCs as protagonists or the gamer inspired by a videogame will use that as a basis.
> 
> ...




Ah, I see.  It appears that you're assuming that people who played D&D in the 80s were wargamers.  That's not true.  Only the original group in the mid 70s.  I'm not a wargamer, and I started in 1981.  No one I played with were wargamers either.  D&D couldn't have grown exponentially if it only had wargamers playing in the 80s.  D&D had it's greatest increase in popularity ratio wise in the 80s, and only few of those were due to wargaming.  Most of us wanted to recreate our own adventures and stories we read about for years, or saw in TV or the movies.

So again, I don't see any evidence that modern gamers care more about stories than we did back in the day.  Streaming isn't it.  Your assumption about wargamers is not accurate.  And in fact, I'll say the evidence may go the other way, because the mechanics of the best selling edition (basic) didn't lend to crunch at all.  Rather due to the _lack _of mechanics, larger parts were narrative.  How many discussions over the year by grognards said they preferred how you would narrate how you opened the door, or picked the lock, or explored the dungeon rather than just make a roll for it?  Or narrated how you would jump to the chandelier and swing over your opponent instead of needing a hard coded power/maneuver in order to do it? Also, Rolemaster is rules heavy, and has been around forever, but has only ever had a fraction of the players.  If gamers cared more about mechanics in the early 80s than the actual stories, you'd think more would have played rolemaster.  So no.  In fact, all evidence seems to point that the huge growth of D&D in the 80s was because the non-wargamers joined, and liked to have the storytelling aspect as a huge factor.  Narration over rules.  Rulings over rules.

In fact, your whole line if reasoning seems off because 5e went _back _to how old school D&D was played (rulings and narration over rules).  So it seems odd that you'd argue that players today care more about a feature that 5e intentionally replicated from older games because it was such a prominent feature of those said old school games.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 30, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> Ah, I see.  It appears that you're assuming that people who played D&D in the 80s were wargamers.  That's not true.  Only the original group in the mid 70s.  I'm not a wargamer, and I started in 1981.  No one I played with were wargamers either.  D&D couldn't have grown exponentially if it only had wargamers playing in the 80s.  D&D had it's greatest increase in popularity ratio wise in the 80s, and only few of those were due to wargaming.  Most of us wanted to recreate our own adventures and stories we read about for years, or saw in TV or the movies.
> 
> So again, I don't see any evidence that modern gamers care more about stories than we did back in the day.  Streaming isn't it.  Your assumption about wargamers is not accurate.  And in fact, I'll say the evidence may go the other way, because the mechanics of the best selling edition (basic) didn't lend to crunch at all.  Rather due to the _lack _of mechanics, larger parts were narrative.  How many discussions over the year by grognards said they preferred how you would narrate how you opened the door, or picked the lock, or explored the dungeon rather than just make a roll for it?  Or narrated how you would jump to the chandelier and swing over your opponent instead of needing a hard coded power/maneuver in order to do it? Also, Rolemaster is rules heavy, and has been around forever, but has only ever had a fraction of the players.  If gamers cared more about mechanics in the early 80s than the actual stories, you'd think more would have played rolemaster.  So no.  In fact, all evidence seems to point that the huge growth of D&D in the 80s was because the non-wargamers joined, and liked to have the storytelling aspect as a huge factor.  Narration over rules.  Rulings over rules.
> 
> In fact, your whole line if reasoning seems off because 5e went _back _to how old school D&D was played (rulings and narration over rules).  So it seems odd that you'd argue that players today care more about a feature that 5e intentionally replicated from older games because it was such a prominent feature of those said old school games.



Not attempting to malign 1e/BECMI gamers. I certainly agree that this edition and its tone and focus on narration are pretty "old school" and very much a return to how things were done. Especially for the various Basic D&D players.

My point isn't that the modern gamers inspired by Streaming care more about stories than they did back in the '80s. More that they care more about stories and less about balance. Effectively, they care more about stories than they did in the 2000s.
Really, I'm crappy on my generation of gamers that got their start with late 2e and 3e...


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 30, 2018)

I don't know that we can say that newer folks are necessarily less crunch focused...but WotC publishing strategy suggests that their numbers point that way.

However, anybody who has used a flip phone is now an old fart, let alone played 3E/4E. Considering the prime demographic, per WotC, is high school and College folks, a fairly high percentage of 5E players weren't alive when 3E was released.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Jul 30, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> I don't know that we can say that newer folks are necessarily less crunch focused...but WotC publishing strategy suggests that their numbers point that way.
> 
> However, anybody who has used a flip phone is now an old fart, let alone played 3E/4E. Considering the prime demographic, per WotC, is high school and College folks, a fairly high percentage of 5E players weren't alive when 3E was released.




I think players new to any system, and especially those new to RPGs at all, are vulnerable to rule overload.

After a while some espouse complexity and some others always eschew it.

As a design paradigm I think it's far easier to target the less complex as the lowest common denominator and let those you what complexity ramp it up as needed.

Someone that wan't things simple is far less likely to want to put the time into making things simpler, while someone who craves complexity might be more than likely to build it themselves when such complexity is not available out of the box.


----------



## ad_hoc (Jul 30, 2018)

BookBarbarian said:


> I think players new to any system, and especially those new to RPGs at all, are vulnerable to rule overload.
> 
> After a while some espouse complexity and some others always eschew it.
> 
> ...




I think it is important to note the difference between simplicity/complexity and elegance/clunkiness.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Jul 30, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> I think it is important to note the difference between simplicity/complexity and elegance/clunkiness.




Absolutely. I crave some complexity, but despise needless complexity.

But even something that is complex but elegant can be too much for some players. For one of my players at least, it's proven true.


----------



## PrimevalSeeker (Jul 31, 2018)

I have to say that I am kinda sorry that we won't be getting an official revised ranger. 

I do not believe that the main problems of the ranger are the dpr output or the overall theme of the ranger, but the feel and implementation of some of the abilities. For me favored enemy, favored terrain and primeval awareness are the worst offenders. Specifically, what bothers me is that they are all DM dependent. 

For favored enemy/terrain, you either know the types of enemies and terrain you are going to encounter and in what order (in my case by asking the DM), which means that the abilities are almost always online, or you don’t and you just wasted a feature of the class if you choose wrong.

Regarding favored terrain, the revised ranger took one step forward and one stem back, making the “traveling for an hour” feature baseline was a good change, however, the additional combat oriented feature was an overcorrection, being too early and too much. The favored enemy problem was made even worse, by changing this situational ability to also provide a damage boost.

I think a fitting solution would be to keep the second part for natural explorer for any terrain and change "favored enemy" so that if you track any enemy for an hour or more you gain advantage on tracking them and maybe gain some useful information. Another more organic version for favored enemy could be that the ranger keeps a bestiary/journal and after tracking/observing/slaying a creature they update it with the creature’s entry. Adding expertise to survival would not hurt either. 

Regarding primeval awareness, this is another ability that makes me feel as if I am giving chores to my DM and I don’t see why this takes up the space of a feature and was not made a ranger only spell, similarly to hunters mark.

Hopefully, if alternative features are introduced (this reminds me of what we have seen so far from PF2), there will be replacements for those three abilities and also hunter and BM subclasses be given spells for the shake of symmetry.




Horwath said:


> That is even worse.
> 
> Favored enemy/terrain is already heavy in DM's charity box. That is, DM has to put encounters especially for you, so you can use your class features.
> 
> ...




This suggestion was very popular in the WotC forums during the playtest for DnDNext. Essentially, the ranger would get something similar to warlock invocations but they would be themed after favored enemy/terrain. I believe it was suggested even before warlock was introduced in the playtest.


----------



## lkj (Jul 31, 2018)

I'm not sure what to make of this, but in the Design+ segment that Jeremy just did, he mentioned that he had just recently approved some errata for the next printing of the core books. He said that they made a number of tweaks and that some of these will make alternative class features unnecessary. Gave no details.

Video can be found:

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/291534952

His discussion of the revised ranger and alternate class features starts at about 32:20 and goes till about 34:45

Major points:
1) They aren't moving fast on alternative class features because they want to get new data (been several years since they collected the first batch). It will help them focus on what might be useful for the community as it stands now. If anything.
2) They use a variety of data sources to make assessments (surveys, DDB, market research, Adventurer's League, etc.)
3) As noted above, he said he'd approved some errata that should make the need for some alternative class features unnecessary.

AD


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 1, 2018)

I am guessing there might be a clarification that once you order your pet to do something (like attack), it will continue to do that same thing without ongoing orders until you give it a new order. That would solve some issues with the beastmaster, without the need for an alternative class feature.


----------



## cbwjm (Aug 1, 2018)

SkidAce said:


> Where did *that *definition come from?




For me, a grognard will forever be the people that live on the Dragonsfoot forums.


----------



## Harzel (Aug 1, 2018)

The claim that "rangers are a frequently played class, therefore the PHB ranger must be ok" depends on the assumption that most of the people playing rangers are playing PHB rangers.  If someone has cited data that supports that, I missed it.  Without such data, that claim seems like a pretty obvious non sequitur.

Also, most of the complaints about the PHB ranger that I have seen center on the Beastmaster.  So maybe the thing one really needs to know is how relatively popular the PHB Beastmaster is.  Is there any data on that?


----------



## ad_hoc (Aug 1, 2018)

Harzel said:


> The claim that "rangers are a frequently played class, therefore the PHB ranger must be ok" depends on the assumption that most of the people playing rangers are playing PHB rangers.  If someone has cited data that supports that, I missed it.  Without such data, that claim seems like a pretty obvious non sequitur.




Wait, what are you saying here?


----------



## Harzel (Aug 1, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> Wait, what are you saying here?




Without some clue from you about how I have failed to communicate, I don't think I can provide a useful clarification.

EDIT: I have reread the portion of my post that you quoted a couple times.  I don't see anything that should make it confusing or incomprehensible.  That doesn't preclude the possibility that I am being dense, though.  Please say more if you wish.


----------



## ad_hoc (Aug 1, 2018)

Harzel said:


> Without some clue from you about how I have failed to communicate, I don't think I can provide a useful clarification.
> 
> EDIT: I have reread the portion of my post that you quoted a couple times.  I don't see anything that should make it confusing or incomprehensible.  That doesn't preclude the possibility that I am being dense, though.  Please say more if you wish.




You said the assumption is that most people are playing the PHB Ranger.

Could you clarify how you think it could possibly be different? It's kind of like saying the majority of people who are playing 5e use the PHB or basic rules.


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 1, 2018)

pukunui said:


> Also this:




That is precisely what I've been saying all the time. Trying to embed a pet into a class or a feat never works, because it's either balanced and therefore weak, or strong and therefore unbalanced, and a middle ground has the worst of both worlds. Any solution may at best satisfy 20% of the people.

It's just so much better to let a player run a pet as an NPC.


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 1, 2018)

pukunui said:


> Looks like the revised ranger might be dead.
> 
> Jeremy Crawford just posted this on Twitter:




That doesn't mean they will do absolutely nothing however, just not another class (unless they change their minds again). They can still do alternative class features, which is much better, and not only for the ranger.


----------



## pukunui (Aug 1, 2018)

lkj said:


> I'm not sure what to make of this, but in the Design+ segment that Jeremy just did, he mentioned that he had just recently approved some errata for the next printing of the core books. He said that they made a number of tweaks and that some of these will make alternative class features unnecessary.



Hmm. I haven't watched the video yet, but the way you have phrased this makes me wary. Jeremy used to make it quite clear that 5e's errata was just going to be for fixing actually errors, not for changing the rules ... but it sounds like this may no longer be the case. If so, color me unimpressed.



Li Shenron said:


> That doesn't mean they will do absolutely nothing however, just not another class (unless they change their minds again). They can still do alternative class features, which is much better, and not only for the ranger.



Perhaps. I still would like to see some alternative class features for the ranger. In fact, I would much rather see alternative class features to rules changes via errata ...


----------



## Horwath (Aug 1, 2018)

Li Shenron said:


> That doesn't mean they will do absolutely nothing however, just not another class (unless they change their minds again). They can still do alternative class features, which is much better, and not only for the ranger.




But if the do AFC for ranger, what class features will those be? Favored enemy and Natural explorer?

Then those ACF will be much stronger or much more usefull, as honestly then can't get any worse.


----------



## pukunui (Aug 1, 2018)

FWIW here's a link to the thread I started almost a year ago when JC first started talking about doing alternate class features instead of a full class substitute: The Future of the Ranger


----------



## Leatherhead (Aug 1, 2018)

It's possible for something to be both popular and hated, or popular and bad, I suppose.
Rangers are a cool concept and have a clear role to play in a party. Rangers also have issues.

More importantly, if popularity was the only metric for focusing on classes, we would be up to our ears in updates for the Bard and Druid right now. And I don't think anyone, even among the new players, has been complaining that those classes are lacking. (Sorcerers have a laundry list of complaints, but they are still more popular than Druids.)


----------



## Winterthorn (Aug 1, 2018)

Waaay back in 1979 when I was a teenager, a friend introduced me to the concept of RPGs and had me build a ranger with a blend of rules from D&D and Chivalry & Sorcery.  His game failed to launch and shortly afterwards I discovered BECMI, which still holds fond memories today, and I never saw an AD&D Ranger until the year 2E was nigh to be released.  I also read Lord of the Rings in the 1980s.  So I always liked the concept of a wilderness warrior, and Strider (Aragorn II) was to me an excellent example of what a human Ranger should be.  Many years and editions later I remain open to variability in the features of such as class, but really do not understand that there seems to be a passion online amongst D&D fans for the ranger greater than any other class. (Excepting of course the much loved Warlord of 4E.). Back in the 3E days the WotC boards would sometimes errupt into a flame storm about the ranger.  There were issues with other classes, but the ranger seemed to me to "steal the show" online.  While in saying I like the concept, I have trouble understanding the passion this class provokes, 'cause this has been going on since well before the Ranger's iteration in 5E.

I can only conclude WotC is misreading the audience for the Ranger because of their North American centric ideas about fantasy - which dovetails with my beef of WotCs phobia/bias concerning Witches, but that's a separate issue.  I suspect expectations for character concepts in fantasy have their distinct followings in NA versus Britain and Europe, and of course beyond too. I suppose that is an interesting discussion of itself vis a vis the marketing of stories, films and fantasy games 

TLDR: WotC's design errors seem to me to be a product of marketing errors.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 1, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Not really.
> They did a major revision in 2015, and based on the feedback from that pulled back from most of the changes to a much smaller revision. And based on the feedback from that, finishing the revision seemed to be a low priority.
> After all, it's a month away from two years and nothing has been done, and only small tweaks were needed to balance the revised ranger. Feedback clearly showed they were either not on the right track or it was not a priority.
> 
> And it's not that the attitudes to the class shifted. It's that the negative attitudes were always a vocal minority to begin with and any changes likely ended up upset more people than they satisfied, paired with an influx of people who are just fine with the ranger how it is.



Yea, I think you've hit the nail on the head here.  With these shifting demographics, who is served by the creation of a precedent of replacing published material for balance reasons?

New players don't care about what previous versions of the ranger did, are presumably less balance sensitive than more experienced gamers (as it's difficult to assess balance without play experience and having a fuller grasp of the system), and are more likely to look to the core rules as a guideline when balance questions do arise.

More experienced gamers in a house campaign can simply grab one of the myriad options of revised rangers already accessible, or make changes on their own to achieve the flavor and power level of ranger they want.

AL gamers can simply avoid the ranger if they think it's undertuned.  For organized play, overtuned builds are more problematic than undertuned options.  Undertuned means that one option becomes unviable, overtuned means that all options not also overtuned become unviable.  (This is also for the AL gamer prioritizing effectiveness, which is not the entirety of AL gamers but somewhat more prevalent.)

The only real group of players affected by the lack of an official ranger are AL gamers that prioritize effectiveness but really really like rangers, and players in home games that like rangers, but don't like homebrew/houseruling.  I personally believe both groups are small, the former need to simply suck it up, and the latter need to learn embrace homebrew, as WotC seems to be moving strongly away from prioritizing concepts being "official".


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 1, 2018)

Horwath said:


> But if the do AFC for ranger, what class features will those be? Favored enemy and Natural explorer?
> 
> Then those ACF will be much stronger or much more usefull, as honestly then can't get any worse.




I don't know. The "favored xxx" types of abilities have had criticism since almost 20 years. If they are strong and narrow then people complain that most of the times they aren't using them, if they are weak and broad then people complain that they don't feel "favoured" enough, if they are strong and broad then they are broken, and if they are weak and narrow then they are ribbon.


----------



## lkj (Aug 1, 2018)

pukunui said:


> Hmm. I haven't watched the video yet, but the way you have phrased this makes me wary. Jeremy used to make it quite clear that 5e's errata was just going to be for fixing actually errors, not for changing the rules ... but it sounds like this may no longer be the case. If so, color me unimpressed.
> 
> Perhaps. I still would like to see some alternative class features for the ranger. In fact, I would much rather see alternative class features to rules changes via errata ...




He didn't clarify in any way in the video. Was really about one sentence. I assume we'll hear soon. But while I'd be against large scale changes put through with the errata, an additional sentence that reads like a clarification wouldn't bother me much. We can argue about whether it's really a clarification and not a rule change (e.g., one could argue that the didn't intend the rangers pet to be so limited so it's errata). But then it gets down to semantics. I agree with your broader point that using errata to change rules is a bad habit. But I don't have a line in the sand. Small wording changes that improve play would be fine with me. I can accept that might not be true for everyone.

AD


----------



## ClaytonCross (Aug 1, 2018)

I just think their needs to be a duel wielding melee subclass option that works (I played one in 3.5 and loved it). I could only make the class work as an archer and half way as single weapon fighter. Two weapon fighting as a ranger with current build options is a mess of uselessness will many levels of stagnation between level 5 and level 17. If Zephyr strike applied to more than one attack and scaled with damage with spell slot used it would be one thing but again its a single attack focused ability and it doesn't even scale. I would say giving the ranger booming blade would fix it but then your back to single strikes again and I would prefer a first level spell that scaled to their is a cost. That's just my opinion anyway.


----------



## ehren37 (Aug 2, 2018)

Ratskinner said:


> This is my experience as well. The Paladin on the other hand...




The ranger is such a joke compared to the paladin. It's like they come from different editions. The paladin essentially gets more bonus spells prepared than the ranger KNOWS. They have an aura that breaks bounded accuracy... who thought handing out +3 to 5 to saves was remotely OK? Their summoned mount is a better animal companion than the useless lump that is the beastmaster's main subclass feature. I'd almost put a paladin with no oath features over a PHB ranger.


----------



## Henry (Aug 2, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> 5e is now the most popular RPG ever and it is currently selling better than it did at launch.
> 
> Those sales are not coming from old hobby gamers...
> 
> (I also think that XGtE did a great job of giving the Ranger some good stuff. I love the Monster Hunter subclass and Zephyr's Strike is fantastic too)




Mike Mearls spoke about this very thing in a DM round table with Matt Colville, Matt Mercer, and Adam Koebel. The audience according to their demographics has been tilted STRONGLY in favor of new players since 2015. Paraphrasing, he said it was almost like half the audience started playing more than 3 years ago, and the other half since 3 years ago. Maybe not exactly half, but the way he spoke it was massive.


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Aug 2, 2018)

Adding new spells, fighting styles (companion fighter, if you animal companion attacks an enemy, you can use your bonus action to make a melee weapon attack against the same enemy), or feats (transference--when you are positively affected by a spell with range self, you can transfer the effects of the spell to your familiar or animal companion) could all improve the ranger (particularly the BM) without actually changing the class.

Edit:  I forgot the ranger doesn't get a lot of chances to pick up fighting styles, and I wouldn't want that to be a required style, so maybe make companion strike a feat:

If you are within 5 feet of an ally that made a melee attack against an enemy, you can use your bonus action to make a melee attack against that enemy.

That seems useful for the low level beast master, not to mention many gishes and melee types.  I thought about making it "make a melee attack or cast a cantrip" against that enemy, but giving a midlevel bladelock two stabs and eldritch blast seemed a bit much.


----------



## lkj (Aug 2, 2018)

You know, I hope at this point if they do alternative class features, that they aren't done so much as a fix but more as really adding new ways to play the existing classes. In some ways, an errata clarification that makes the existing beastmaster work better is a great idea to do first, so that any alternatives are truly just different ways to play in stead of strictly better. 

The question I suppose is at what point would a new subclass cover that ground just as well, without the potential confusion. And I guess it's when there are either core class features that would be nifty to alter. Or when an existing subclass already covers the niche and you just want another way to play it.

AD


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 3, 2018)

Lots of talk here justifying WotC. As if we needed corporate mouthpieces in our discussion. 

The animal companion absolutely must have its own action. It absolutely must be survivable much like a player character. 

Why not simply acknowledge how playing two figures will always be inherently unbalanced? 

Why not design the subclass the way it needs to be designed, and then slap a sidebar onto it saying you need DM approval to play it?

This is nothing different than the Wild Mage in the PHB.

TLDR Any Beastmaster with a "balanced" pet is a useless Beastmaster. So make a class that works, and require DM opt-in so groups can choose:

If balance is a primary concern, tell the player to play something else.

If everyone is okay with having a pet beast that actually contributes and doesn't need to be saved all the time, then a Beastmaster it is.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 3, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Lots of talk here justifying WotC. As if we needed corporate mouthpieces in our discussion.
> 
> The animal companion absolutely must have its own action. It absolutely must be survivable much like a player character.
> 
> ...




In your opinion of course.  

In my games, the halfling beastmaster with a wolf pet worked perfectly fine and was probably one of the highest damaging characters, including the paladin.  Note, we were using the revised beastmaster from the UA.  Had zero problems with it.  I'm again, frankly baffled why people are having such issues with it.  

Is this an issue at higher levels?  I'll admit, we only played to 8th level with that character, so, maybe I just didn't see the issues coming up.  But, frankly, for the five levels that we had the beastmaster it was more than certainly holding its own.


----------



## CTurbo (Aug 3, 2018)

Hussar said:


> In your opinion of course.
> 
> In my games, the halfling beastmaster with a wolf pet worked perfectly fine and was probably one of the highest damaging characters, including the paladin.  Note, we were using the revised beastmaster from the UA.  Had zero problems with it.  I'm again, frankly baffled why people are having such issues with it.
> 
> Is this an issue at higher levels?  I'll admit, we only played to 8th level with that character, so, maybe I just didn't see the issues coming up.  But, frankly, for the five levels that we had the beastmaster it was more than certainly holding its own.





I thought it was generally agreed that the UA Revised Ranger was a little OP. It doesn't surprise me at all that the Revised Beastmaster was one of the highest DPR character in the group.


----------



## Olrox17 (Aug 3, 2018)

How disappointing. My players have been enjoying the revised ranger, as opposed to the lame PHB one. Looks like I'll have to finish designing the revised ranger myself.


----------



## OB1 (Aug 3, 2018)

In general, I think the PHB Beastmaster does a fine job of telling the story of a Ranger who has animal companions, as opposed to animal weapons.  My 11 year old niece loves the class and would have words with anyone who told her that her PC was useless.

I do make one change at my tables for Beastmasters.  I don't require an action for the beast to take the dodge, disengage or dash action, and it begins each combat with dodge active.  That last part is probably a bit too much for an errata change, but moving dodge, disengage and dash to verbal might be small enough to sneak through and would be consistent with the goal of making the companion a primarily out of combat utility that can come into the fray in dire circumstances and with the unique player challenge of having something to protect.


----------



## Laurefindel (Aug 3, 2018)

CTurbo said:


> I thought it was generally agreed that the UA Revised Ranger was a little OP. It doesn't surprise me at all that the Revised Beastmaster was one of the highest DPR character in the group.




It is? (Generally agreed I mean). I haven’t heard that many complaints in The DPR department, mostly how it trivializes exploration and makes the Survival skill just as useless for the ranger as the Healing skill for a cleric.

Personally, I dislike the companion’s mechanics because it is so different from any other ally mechanics. Summoned creatures have their own actions, figurines of wonderdrous power have their own actions, familiars have their own actions, even regular, store-bought pets, so to speak, have their own actions. For me, the lack of consistency bugs me more than the quest for balance. I don’t have a problem with allies taking your own action per say, but I wish everyone would have the same.

I don’t always agree with CapnZapp’s strong opinions, but I agree that dev admitting that characters who want a pet should buy a dog is an avowal of resignation and a slap in the face for those who were looking forward to an official alternative.

But as much as I like designing RPGs and such, I would never work at WotC.  No matter what you do, there will always be “fans” that tells you over and over that you’re the worst person on earth and that you have ruined their hobby for life...


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 3, 2018)

Hussar said:


> In your opinion of course.
> 
> In my games, the halfling beastmaster with a wolf pet worked perfectly fine and was probably one of the highest damaging characters, including the paladin.  Note, we were using the revised beastmaster from the UA.  Had zero problems with it.  I'm again, frankly baffled why people are having such issues with it.
> 
> Is this an issue at higher levels?  I'll admit, we only played to 8th level with that character, so, maybe I just didn't see the issues coming up.  But, frankly, for the five levels that we had the beastmaster it was more than certainly holding its own.



First you put words in my mouth suggesting I'm wrong about the animal companion. 

Then you admit you're not using the PHB version yourself.

Why write a reply to disagree if you're not even discussing what I'm discussing?

Obviously the Revised AC is better. It gets its own action. Which is my point.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 3, 2018)

Laurefindel said:


> I don’t always agree with CapnZapp’s strong opinions, but I agree that dev admitting that characters who want a pet should buy a dog is an avowal of resignation and a slap in the face for those who were looking forward to an official alternative.



Thank you.

Apparently the success of 5E has made at least one dev think he doesn't need his most ardent fans no more...


----------



## ehren37 (Aug 3, 2018)

CTurbo said:


> I thought it was generally agreed that the UA Revised Ranger was a little OP. It doesn't surprise me at all that the Revised Beastmaster was one of the highest DPR character in the group.




Overpowered compared to what? The original ranger? It would be hard not to, that was the worst class in the PHB. 

I also think the UA ranger is fine (and even buffed it somewhat by adding cantrips and letting beneficial spells affect the animal companion as well). Individual ranger spells also needed to be boosted, as they were in general awful compared to paladin ones.


----------



## Asgorath (Aug 3, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Adventurer’s League is irrelevant.
> 
> There are less than 2500 Wizards Play Network stores running AL in North America. Less than 0.5% if games are AL. And, of those, only a fraction will play rangers. And only a fraction of that fraction of those will want to play the ranger but not like it.
> It’s an irrelevant number.
> ...




Roll20 and AL are not mutually exclusive, though.  I DM 2 separate games using AL rules via Roll20, we chose the AL rules for a variety of reasons including a somewhat-inconsistent roster from week to week and people wanted characters they could take to conventions etc.  I'd be shocked if I was the only person doing this.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 3, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Thank you.
> 
> Apparently the success of 5E has made at least one dev think he doesn't need his most ardent fans no more...



Considering the massive growth of 5e, he'd hardly be wrong to think so.

Ideally, a pet class using actions to command the pet AND rules to allow a pet to act as an independent PC would both be in existence.  There's a spectrum that runs from 3.5 Leadership -> PF summoner -> 5e ranger -> Pokemon trainer, and the rules should be able to hit a few different spots on the spectrum.


----------



## Winterthorn (Aug 4, 2018)

As a DM I have had no problem in principle with pets, hirelings, pet classes, the NPC derived from Leadership feat of 3.5E, and so on.  So what if a cless feature, spell, or clever roleplaying means one or two players have an extra character/critter to run?  These extras are part of the PC's team, and in my experience the players who don't have one often pitch in advice for, or exploit tactically, the extra on hand for the benefit of the whole.  Such extras also serve as vehicles for the DM's plot development and story tension.  So IMHO Wotc flubbed on the Beastmaster which could have so much more than it is now. Let the beast fight freely for its master/friend.  Release the beast! 

I don't think a whole rewrite of the Ranger is necessary.  Perhaps all it takes is a few choice errated words and an extra line or two in the reprint of Ranger, and its beastmeaster subclass, and that would be a fix to suffice most people's concerns?  (The secret of good rules is concise and clever wording.)


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 4, 2018)

I took the best ideas of the revised ranger and some of the ideas from the Xanathars subclasses and did my own update.

1. I gave favored enemy a combat element. I also broke up what options you can pick at what level.

2. Likewise, I gave rangers a combat edge in favored terrain.

3. I buffed the level 20 ability.

4. I have Hunter and beastmaster bonus spells known like the Xanathars subclasses.

5. I basically replaced the beastmaster with the revised, with a few mods to remove the extra attack Element.

If you want, check it out.View attachment Alt ranger stuff.docx


----------



## Satyrn (Aug 4, 2018)

Winterthorn said:


> So IMHO Wotc flubbed on the Beastmaster which could have so much more than it is now. Let the beast fight freely for its master/friend.  Release the beast!



I feel like they flubbed the beastmaster in a different way.

I'd rather they had made it more clear that any character can have a pet. It wouldn't need to be much. Just by providing a table in the equipment section that listed the prices for housecats, hunting dogs, fighting dogs and other common companion animals, it'd be clear enough that animals can be useful in whatever the table wants them to be.

Then the beastmasted could have features that improve the companion when it acts, rather than features that are seemingly required for the companion to act all.


----------



## SkidAce (Aug 4, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> Then the beastmasted could have features that improve the companion when it acts, rather than features that are seemingly required for the companion to act all.




This nails it.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 4, 2018)

Well, not really.

Many people want an animal friend that dies as easily as a player character, which means to say not easily at all.

A pet that can't tank a few mobs and survive the odd Fireball can't be used for the intended purpose; which is to run into melee to free the master to shoot at range.

I agree the action doesn't need to be tightly controlled, but since petmasters want their pets to do the heavy lifting, it doesn't work without some levelling of the beast. A level 1 wolf's attack capacity is of course more than adequate at low level; but not later on.

Maybe the best model is to 
1) allow the pets it's free will and action (this part is mandatory)
2) the Ranger can spend it's own action on either another (larger) wolf attack; or use its full action on itself (any rangery thing)

The pet still needs vastly higher survivability than regular wolves - NOT including autorezzing. At the very least a full soul link (is that the name?) that allows the Ranger to take up to 100% (merely 50% ain't enough) of the damage made to the pet.

That tweet is a punch in the face of anyone that thinks so.


----------



## Pauln6 (Aug 4, 2018)

So to summarise,  giving the companion half proficiency bonus to untrained saves,  uncanny dodge at level 7, and allowing it to share the benefits of both Hunter's Mark and the ranger's Healing Surges might be enough? I'd bung in Revivify Beast as a class feature (at level 3?).

I suppose there's even scope for giving beasts battlemaster style manoeuvres depending on their type?


----------



## pming (Aug 5, 2018)

Hiya.

*WARNING! RANT BELOW!!*



CapnZapp said:


> Well, frak them.
> 
> The PHB Beastmaster is useless and a pet without its own action is shíte.




Only if you DM is a complete, total and utter moron.

The BIGGEST (and pretty much the only) complaint people have about the Beastmaster is DM's that don't understand that something that is alive...tends to want to stay alive. Something that has a child, mother, or father...tends to want to protect them. Something that has feelings of loyalty and devotion...tends to want to see the person of their loyalty and devotion happy.

A Beastmasters pet? Yeah, SURPRISE! _It's all of those_, but turned up to 11. And smarter. And more skilled. And attuned to it's master on a magical level.

Any DM who says "_Yeah, you can buy a trained war dog. It will fight for you and guard and stuff_"...and then when the party is attacked by goblins the PC says "I tell Fido to sic 'em! Then I wade in to combat with my axe!"...and has Fido trying to kill goblins as the PC swings away? Good for that DM. That's what a trained animal does; it attacks (or whatever) until the task is finished. It doesn't run up to the bad guy, snap at him....and then sit down. 

Any DM who says "_Yeah, you have a Beastmaster war dog. It will stand there and DO ABSOLUTELY FREAKING NOTHING, until you tell it to do something_"... and then when the party is attacked by goblins the PC says "I tell Fido to sic 'em! Then I wade into combat with my axe!" ...and has Fido ATTACK ONE GOBLIN ONE TIME...AND THEN SIT THERE DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHILE IT GETS STABBED BY A GOBLIN? That is a complete and total moron of a DM.

Any DM who says "Fido? No, he's still back sitting on the porch of the Yellow Duck Inn, about 50 miles back. When you left you didn't tell him to come...perform the Move action. Even if you did, when you all ran away from the grey ooze, when you thought Fido was with you, you didn't tell me you told him to Dash, so he would have been caught and eaten by the ooze. Because he was walking and you guys were running....and you didn't tell him to Attack, so he would have just kept walking until the ooze devoured him".  

What? Does that sound, I don't know...completely, totally and utterly MORONIC!?  Yeah...thought so...

THAT is my problem. NOT with the Beastmaster, but by how so many so-called "DM's" out there take something that is NOT written (e.g., a war dog fights when you tell it to and doesn't stop until it's foes are dead or you tell it to stop, that would be expected; if you buy a new pair of scissors from the tradesman, you expect them to be sharp and do the job), and uses his/her brain....but the SECOND something is written saying "The Ranger uses an action to command the pet", said "DM" all of a sudden decides "Oh, I guess Beastmaster pets are just mindless automatons who interpret commands literally and will do nothing unless told to".

THAT is the "problem" with Beastmaster. It's not the class. It's the DM. And the players that somehow think this makes sense and dismisses all logic and reasoning. A Beastmaster fighting goblins can point at one and say "Sic 'em Fido!", and then wade into combat. Fido should then continue, round after round, to try and kill the goblin. If another goblin attacks him during this, Fido would keep trying to kill his original target. After he does, if the other goblin is still attacking him, Fido would naturally defend himself and try and kill that goblin. Then would continue until no goblin was attacking him. Then Fido would return to the Beastmaster. Where the Beastmaster can choose another target or command Fido to do something else...and THIS would take an Action. 

Frak _THEM_. They are the ones giving Beastmaster rangers a bad rap. I'm 100% behind Jeremy on this one (something I rarely am).

Ok. ...phew... I'm done. Got that out of my system. I don't think I will ever comment about Beastmasters again other than with perhaps a single word.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Aug 5, 2018)

Hussar said:


> In my games, the halfling beastmaster with a wolf pet worked perfectly fine and was probably one of the highest damaging characters, including the paladin.  Note, we were using the revised beastmaster from the UA.  Had zero problems with it.  I'm again, frankly baffled why people are having such issues with it.



The UA beastmaster fixed the wonky action  and advancement issues of the PHB version. That's what most people were most annoyed by. And the one thing that really _needs_ to be fixed. Every other problem is either exaggerated (DPR) or a matter of taste (favored enemy, natural explorer, hunter's mark, spellcasting, etc.). And I'm saying this as someone who's got _very_ different tastes and has totally rewritten the class. More than once.


----------



## DeanP (Aug 5, 2018)

"Over the past year, you’ve seen us try a number of
new approaches to the ranger, all aimed at
addressing the class’s high levels of player
dissatisfaction and its ranking as D&D’s weakest
class by a significant margin.
Those two factors combined to put us on the
path to this revision. We have classes that rate as
weak, but which nonetheless have high levels of
player satisfaction. That tells us people playing
those classes are happy with how their characters’
abilities work and with their own experience at the
table, even if those classes aren’t the strongest.
After all, not every class can rank at the top.
Likewise, most issues we see with classes are
confined to specific abilities that don’t play a big
role in determining whether players like the class
as a whole. In other words, no class is perfect, but
each is close enough to the mark in its own way
that players are happy."


This is what they wrote in the preamble of the UA: Ranger Revised. So which it is true? What was written then or the more recent tweet?


----------



## ad_hoc (Aug 5, 2018)

DeanP said:


> This is what they wrote in the preamble of the UA: Ranger Revised. So which it is true? What was written then or the more recent tweet?




Both can be true.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Aug 5, 2018)

pming said:


> THAT is my problem. NOT with the Beastmaster, but by how so many so-called "DM's" out there take something that is NOT written (e.g., a war dog fights when you tell it to and doesn't stop until it's foes are dead or you tell it to stop, that would be expected; if you buy a new pair of scissors from the tradesman, you expect them to be sharp and do the job), and uses his/her brain....but the SECOND something is written saying "The Ranger uses an action to command the pet", said "DM" all of a sudden decides "Oh, I guess Beastmaster pets are just mindless automatons who interpret commands literally and will do nothing unless told to".



PHB, p. 93, second column, fifth paragraph, second sentence: _"It takes its turn on your initiative, though *it doesn't take an action unless you command it to*."_

So this hypothetical _"complete, utter, and total moron"_ DM knows the rules of the game they're supposed to be adjudicating. And _you_ did not.

But now that you do, does it give you cause to reconsider your opinion that _"It's not the class"_?


----------



## Pauln6 (Aug 5, 2018)

I've always assumed it functions more like Spiritual Weapon.   Once commanded to attack a particular target using the ranger's action, it continues to do so until that target is dead or until something happens to it e.g. it is bloodied and its instincts take over and it's likely to flee.   At that point, the Ranger has to decide whether to take another action to command it to overcome its fear or get back in there.   It's bonkers and unnatural to suggest it requires a rinse and repeat command every round.  I expect the errata will clarify this.

Other actions might be different though.   If commanded to retrieve a weapon from an enemy that one of your allies has just disarmed, it isn't going to keep doing that.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 5, 2018)

DeanP said:


> This is what they wrote in the preamble of the UA: Ranger Revised. So which it is true? What was written then or the more recent tweet?



Lesson for you: don't mindlessly copy paste...


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 5, 2018)

Add me to the list that's not a fan of this tweet. Regardless of your feelings on the revised ranger, it was condescending and snooty. And if there are no plans to finished the revised ranger, he could have certainly communicated that in a better way. It's almost as if he was insulted to even have to answer the question.

Now that that's out of the way, I don't get his answer. Do they lack so much bandwidth that they can't continue to tweak the ranger - or any other class for that matter - and put out UA articles? Even if nothing is AL legal, it at least gives great insight into the design process and offers more player options. It also keeps people who are asking for changes happy.

It also feels like a hard shift in their philosophy. They seemed to be very open-minded about what they were offering in the UA articles. But now this tweet suddenly feels like a shift in that philosophy. I certainly hope that isn't the case.


----------



## Laurefindel (Aug 5, 2018)

GlassJaw said:


> ...Regardless of your feelings on the revised ranger, it was condescending and snooty. And if there are no plans to finished the revised ranger, he could have certainly communicated that in a better way. It's almost as if he was insulted to even have to answer the question...




This.

I would have been ok with something like "we stand by our original design in being the best solution for the beastmaster". But telling players to buy a dog for their characters or ask their DM for a pet while they designed a subclass especially for that purpose is like saying "yeah, we know there's the eldritch knight but if you want to cast spells as a fighter, just ask your DM".

To be honest, i'm actually quite ok with the "ask your DM to play something you want" part, at least in principle. But if this was the way to handle the animal companion, I wish they had been upfront about it from the get go. This is only frustrating because they seemed to genuinely care about the player's perceived issue on the beastmaster at first, and actively worked toward an official alternative in (what I considered) good faith.

To abandon the project is one thing, but to be snarky about it makes it upsetting. But I don't know, the internet is a nasty place sometimes and fans are not always respectful. Actually snooty-ness and condescension often seem to be the norm rather than the exception. Perhaps I'd become bitter and condescending too in their place...


----------



## Satyrn (Aug 5, 2018)

pming said:


> Hiya.
> 
> *WARNING! RANT BELOW!!*
> 
> ...




That was intense!


----------



## Asgorath (Aug 5, 2018)

pming said:


> Any DM who says "_Yeah, you can buy a trained war dog. It will fight for you and guard and stuff_"...and then when the party is attacked by goblins the PC says "I tell Fido to sic 'em! Then I wade in to combat with my axe!"...and has Fido trying to kill goblins as the PC swings away? Good for that DM. That's what a trained animal does; it attacks (or whatever) until the task is finished. It doesn't run up to the bad guy, snap at him....and then sit down.




I'm expecting this is exactly what they are going to clarify with an errata change, rather than a complete redesign of the class/subclass.  They're probably going to clarify that you can give your beast an order with an action, and then it will continue to do that every round until otherwise directed.  So, if you order it to Attack an enemy, it will just keep doing that until you use another action to tell it to stop etc.


----------



## pming (Aug 5, 2018)

Hiya.



TheCosmicKid said:


> PHB, p. 93, second column, fifth paragraph, second sentence: _"It takes its turn on your initiative, though *it doesn't take an action unless you command it to*."_
> 
> So this hypothetical _"complete, utter, and total moron"_ DM knows the rules of the game they're supposed to be adjudicating. And _you_ did not.
> 
> But now that you do, does it give you cause to reconsider your opinion that _"It's not the class"_?




Changes nothing. At all.

I'm not arguing that what you pointed out isn't true. I said, in the quote of mine you posted: _... the SECOND something is written saying "The Ranger uses an action to command the pet"_.

That was the entire point. That a DM who reads that "must command...Action" line in the PHB and doesn't apply the same standard to every other animal in the entire D&D universe, is being a moron. I mean, when the PC's are in a goblin cave and the goblins ambush them. The goblins first send in their 3 worgs, then they shoot arrows, then next round move in to melee. Three goblins don't "hold back so they can command the worgs". The worgs are trained to attack intruders and the worgs, presumably, "like" the goblins (to some degree anyway). Or when the PC's move out of the way when walking down the street to make room for a half-dozen mounted knights of the realm...the PC's don't hear the knights shouting "Move" or kicking/squeezing their heels every 10 seconds to keep the horses moving.

Why? Because animals behave as they should behave...except when a well trained one is told not to behave as it naturally would. This simple fact is lost to the so-called DM's I was talking about. It is bad DM'ing (and totally unfair) to apply different standards to the same thing based on who or what is working with it. 

To me, it's the same as if a DM said "Everyone make a Strength check to hold on. DC 12, except for the Barbarian...yours is 12 but at Disadvantage; use your Rage to remove that". That would make no sense and be unfair. "Ok Presto, you can cast your spell as your pet mastiff attacks the orc coming at you. Longstrider the Beastmaster? Your pet mastiff just lays there and get's attacked because you lost your action this round...oh, right, it gets attacked with Advantage because it's prone. You haven't told it to get up since arriving two days ago". <-- NO SENSE.

If you can't see why I'm saying that DM's interpreting "must use his action to command" to mean "must use his action to command the animal every 10 seconds or it stops doing everything and ignores all surrounding environmental factors even if this kills it or lets the beastmaster die", then so be it. I would bet dimes to dollars that there are tens of thousands of DM's out there who have no problem with the Beastmaster because they run the pet as being AT LEAST as smart as a well-trained animal. If your DM is running it as a mindless automaton...well, as I said, it's not a problem with the class; it's a problem with your DM.

As for "But it's IN the RULES!"...D&D has one overriding rule. It's called "The DM". In 5e, much like in BECMI or 1e (and to a slightly lesser extent, 2e), the smooth running of a game session REQUIRES that the DM be an active "rule" in the sense that he/she must use their own brainpower to think about the situation and apply any rule appropriately. 

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Aug 5, 2018)

pming said:


> Changes nothing. At all.
> 
> I'm not arguing that what you pointed out isn't true. I said, in the quote of mine you posted: ... the SECOND something is written saying "The Ranger uses an action to command the pet".
> 
> ...



What I quoted at you is a special rule applying to beastmaster companions but not to anything else which explicitly prevents the companion from taking an action unless it is commanded to. Just as if there were a special rule applying to barbarians which explicitly gave them disadvantage on Strength checks. If you think this situation is nonsensical and unfair, _you are preaching to the choir_. The point that is sailing over your head is that when a DM is required to throw out a rule in order to maintain common sense and fairness, there is absolutely a problem with the rule. You can't just expect the DM to fix anything and blame them if they don't. If a DM wanted to write their own rules, they could just design their own game. They buy D&D so they don't have to. It's reasonable to expect an RPG for which they have spent good money not to have rules which are moronic on their face. In this one particular case, D&D has failed that expectation.


----------



## Eubani (Aug 5, 2018)

Stormwind Fallacy...…….just sayin'.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 6, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> First you put words in my mouth suggesting I'm wrong about the animal companion.
> 
> Then you admit you're not using the PHB version yourself.
> 
> ...




Then, I'm really confused.

What's the problem here?  The ranger has been revised, you admit that the revision fixes the problems.  So, why would they need to publish yet another revision?


----------



## ArwensDaughter (Aug 6, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Then, I'm really confused.
> 
> What's the problem here?  The ranger has been revised, you admit that the revision fixes the problems.  So, why would they need to publish yet another revision?




Because the revision is not published in the sense of being official; the revision is UA.  UA which has, in WOTC's estimation, been archived.  It can certainly be used in home games (and I probably would at my table), but it's not AL legal.  Personally I'm not too flustered about it because I can always use the revision, or some adaptation of it.  (I've toyed with giving Beastmasters beast sense x times per rest, but only with their companion, for example)  AL's not an issue for me as there aren't any AL games anywhere close.  But I do understand the frustration with Beastmaster being officially revised.


----------



## Azzy (Aug 6, 2018)

The only thing good about the revision is what it did for the Beastmaster. Many of the other features were just too good. We don't need a revised ranger, we just "need" to revise the Beastmaster slightly.


----------



## Mercule (Aug 6, 2018)

ArwensDaughter said:


> Because the revision is not published in the sense of being official; the revision is UA.  UA which has, in WOTC's estimation, been archived.  It can certainly be used in home games (and I probably would at my table), but it's not AL legal.  Personally I'm not too flustered about it because I can always use the revision, or some adaptation of it.  (I've toyed with giving Beastmasters beast sense x times per rest, but only with their companion, for example)  AL's not an issue for me as there aren't any AL games anywhere close.  But I do understand the frustration with Beastmaster being officially revised.



Really, I don't give a rip about the beastmaster -- the pet should go with the druid, not the ranger, IMO. I like the Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy abilities better.

The only reason I want something official (or, at least, another UA) is because the revised ranger hunter is the only PC that can't be built using DDB because they aren't opening up home brew base classes and WotC has "archived" the UA ranger so it isn't included in playtest DDB. Now, nothing in the Natural Explorer or Favored Enemy abilities impacts any of the math on the sheet, but I really want the novice player (who is the one playing a ranger) to have an accurate sheet and be in my database of PCs.

I may have done that rant earlier in the thread, but there are so many whine sessions about the ranger, I can't even remember.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Aug 6, 2018)

Eubani said:


> Stormwind Fallacy...…….just sayin'.




If you're referring to the post I think you are, wrong fallacy.

This is the fallacy you're looking for.


----------



## pming (Aug 6, 2018)

Hiya!



TheCosmicKid said:


> What I quoted at you is a special rule applying to beastmaster companions but not to anything else which explicitly prevents the companion from taking an action unless it is commanded to. Just as if there were a special rule applying to barbarians which explicitly gave them disadvantage on Strength checks. If you think this situation is nonsensical and unfair, _you are preaching to the choir_.




Ahhh... a total misunderstanding on my part. My bad. I apologize. I thought "you" (not just you but others) were pretty much saying "It's stupid, but that's what it says so we can't change the rules. WotC needs to officially change them, and until they do...Beastmasters suck because there's nothing we can do about it".



> The point that is sailing over your head is that when a DM is required to throw out a rule in order to maintain common sense and fairness, there is absolutely a problem with the rule. You can't just expect the DM to fix anything and blame them if they don't. If a DM wanted to write their own rules, they could just design their own game. They buy D&D so they don't have to. It's reasonable to expect an RPG for which they have spent good money not to have rules which are moronic on their face. In this one particular case, D&D has failed that expectation.




I think I generally agree with you...generally. I don't agree that, if I'm reading this right, the expectation is for the DM to not change things that make no/little sense...or to interpret things in a very verbose and literal meaning. A case of "RAW' versus "RAI" I'm thinking.

To me, because 5e is specifically designed with a lot of...shall we say, "wiggle room" for the DM throughout it's core, it very much is the DM's fault if he/she is interpreting something that results in a 'bad' game (or spell, race, or class in this case). I think this is just a difference of expectations with regards to the Rule Books and the DM's/Players. 

I, personally, don't have any problem with the rule as is, because I see my DM job as to interpret, fix, ignore, add or otherwise modify the game rules and expectations. In this case, I don't think WotC was "bad" for writing the rule that way. Could it have been written better? Probably. But I paid for the book which includes a Beastmaster. I don't expect the class (or books in general) to be "perfect" (and I don't think you do either). From what I read, "...must use an action to command" is only "moronic" if the DM is interpreting it literally and with no other factors taking place in the game. As I said...RAW versus RAI. I read that and think "Huh...seems kinda limiting. I don't think that's what they meant because then the PC Beastmaster would be really disadvantaged. They must mean that to change or initiate a command, the Beastmaster has to do that. Then the pet takes over doing that. Hmmm...yeah. That makes much more sense. Probably what they intended".

RAW vs RAI.

Thanks for clearing up your POV on it. 

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Hussar (Aug 6, 2018)

Mercule said:


> Really, I don't give a rip about the beastmaster -- the pet should go with the druid, not the ranger, IMO. I like the Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy abilities better.
> 
> The only reason I want something official (or, at least, another UA) is because the revised ranger hunter is the only PC that can't be built using DDB because they aren't opening up home brew base classes and WotC has "archived" the UA ranger so it isn't included in playtest DDB. Now, nothing in the Natural Explorer or Favored Enemy abilities impacts any of the math on the sheet, but I really want the novice player (who is the one playing a ranger) to have an accurate sheet and be in my database of PCs.
> 
> I may have done that rant earlier in the thread, but there are so many whine sessions about the ranger, I can't even remember.




Sorry. "DDB"?  Haven't seen that acronym before.

So, the issue here is the "official" tag?  I can see that.  OTOH, WotC would have access to information about what classes are being played in AL don't they?  I've never played, but, aren't characters registered in some way?  Isn't there any reporting going back to WotC about what is being played?  I would presume so, but, maybe I'm wrong.

So, if they are getting feedback from AL play, and the PHB ranger is being played in AL without any real issue, then, well, again, what's the problem?  If you want to play in the AL, you play the PHB ranger.  Which, apparently, is being played often enough that it's not seen as a problem.  For home games, you have the UA ranger, which arguably fixes the problems that people have with the PHB ranger.

Where is the problem?


----------



## cbwjm (Aug 6, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Sorry. "DDB"?  Haven't seen that acronym before.
> 
> So, the issue here is the "official" tag?  I can see that.  OTOH, WotC would have access to information about what classes are being played in AL don't they?  I've never played, but, aren't characters registered in some way?  Isn't there any reporting going back to WotC about what is being played?  I would presume so, but, maybe I'm wrong.
> 
> ...



DDB is, I'm 99% certain, DnD Beyond.


----------



## Mercule (Aug 6, 2018)

Yup. Otherwise, I'd be fine with the UA article and move on. Kinda like a Dragon  magazine, back in the day. I just want my tool to work, and my "outrage" is proportional to that.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 7, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Then, I'm really confused.
> 
> What's the problem here?  The ranger has been revised, you admit that the revision fixes the problems.  So, why would they need to publish yet another revision?




???

First off, it isn't published! It's still in UA.

Second, it desperately needs its multiclass balancing pass.

Are you really arguing in good faith if I need to point out the obvious to you...


----------



## BookBarbarian (Aug 7, 2018)

Hussar said:


> For home games, you have the UA ranger, which arguably fixes the problems that people have with the PHB ranger.
> 
> Where is the problem?




The UA Revised ranger swung the pendulum to far in the opposite direction for my tastes. Which is not surprising. Most of the Classes and subclasses in UA are too strong and are toned down when published. 

This is a good way to get a lot of feedback on UAs.

I was excited to see the direction they were taking it. And indeed if they are still planning some alternate class features I am still excited.


----------



## ChameleonX (Aug 7, 2018)

If you think the PHB Ranger is too weak, here's the simple solution;

Favored Enemy: Add the following sentence: Once per turn, when you hit one of your Favored Enemies with a weapon attack, you may add your proficiency bonus to one of that attack's damage rolls.

Primeval Awareness: Delete the phrase, "Expend a spell slot." Add the following to the end of the paragraph, "You can use this feature a number of times equal to your wisdom modifier (Minimum 1). You regain any expended uses when you finish a long rest.

Hide in Plain Sight: replace with UA feature of the same name.

Foe Slayer: replace the word "or" with the word "and."

Boom. No more problems.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Aug 7, 2018)

ChameleonX said:


> Primeval Awareness: Delete the phrase, "Expend a spell slot." Add the following to the end of the paragraph, "You can use this feature a number of times equal to your wisdom modifier (Minimum 1). You regain any expended uses when you finish a long rest.




That doesn't address the fact that Primeval Awareness provides more useful information outside of your favored terrain than in it.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 8, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> ???
> 
> First off, it isn't published! It's still in UA.
> 
> ...




So, it's not enough for you home game that it's in a free pdf, it MUST be in a hardcover book before it counts?

And, sorry, but, I don't know what you mean by "its multiclass balancing pass".  Like I said, we've had rangers in almost every single campaign we've played since 5e came out, including several UA rangers and none of them have been an issue.  So, again, I simply don't know what your beef is.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Aug 8, 2018)

Hussar said:


> So, it's not enough for you home game that it's in a free pdf, it MUST be in a hardcover book before it counts?
> 
> And, sorry, but, I don't know what you mean by "its multiclass balancing pass".  Like I said, we've had rangers in almost every single campaign we've played since 5e came out, including several UA rangers and none of them have been an issue.  So, again, I simply don't know what your beef is.




First, back when this was still a thing that could get published, Mearls and/or Crawford said it would be put out in a way that it would be free. They said they did not want to make people pay for the same core rules class twice.

Second, nothing class or class-based that is in a UA article has been balanced for multiclass use. They are meant to be play tested as a single-class character. And any that do make it to print will be adjusted down in power levels to mesh with the multiclassing rules.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 8, 2018)

BookBarbarian said:


> That doesn't address the fact that Primeval Awareness provides more useful information outside of your favored terrain than in it.




Depends how you read "up to".


----------



## Hussar (Aug 8, 2018)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> First, back when this was still a thing that could get published, Mearls and/or Crawford said it would be put out in a way that it would be free. They said they did not want to make people pay for the same core rules class twice.
> 
> Second, nothing class or class-based that is in a UA article has been balanced for multiclass use. They are meant to be play tested as a single-class character. And any that do make it to print will be adjusted down in power levels to mesh with the multiclassing rules.




I dunno.  My Forge Priest is pretty much identical to the UA one.  It changed a single spell - Shield.  That was it.  And, as I understand it, many of the Xanathar's classes were pretty much verbatim what came out in UA.


----------



## CTurbo (Aug 8, 2018)

The original Undying Light Warlock was the most OP offering I've seen from the UA. Searing Vengeance was just bonkers for a level 6 ability.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 8, 2018)

ChameleonX said:


> If you think the PHB Ranger is too weak, here's the simple solution;
> 
> Favored Enemy: Add the following sentence: Once per turn, when you hit one of your Favored Enemies with a weapon attack, you may add your proficiency bonus to one of that attack's damage rolls.
> 
> ...



Now WotC just needs to publish it. Then I'll boom you.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 8, 2018)

Hussar said:


> So, it's not enough for you home game that it's in a free pdf, it MUST be in a hardcover book before it counts?
> 
> And, sorry, but, I don't know what you mean by "its multiclass balancing pass".  Like I said, we've had rangers in almost every single campaign we've played since 5e came out, including several UA rangers and none of them have been an issue.  So, again, I simply don't know what your beef is.



That's okay. I will explain to a certain level. If you still don't get it I don't think we can have a fruitful exchange, so I'm not losing out on anything worthwhile.

Edit: What Enevhar said.


----------



## ChameleonX (Aug 8, 2018)

BookBarbarian said:


> That doesn't address the fact that Primeval Awareness provides more useful information outside of your favored terrain than in it.




Well, that's the simple solution. The more complex solution would be this


----------



## BookBarbarian (Aug 8, 2018)

ChameleonX said:


> Well, that's the simple solution. The more complex solution would be this




Kudos! That does look like a really good Ranger. It incorporates a lot of of the REvised this I like, but moves them to appropriate level, Actually has an Inspiring capstone, and good bonus spells for the PHB subclasses.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 9, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> That's okay. I will explain to a certain level. If you still don't get it I don't think we can have a fruitful exchange, so I'm not losing out on anything worthwhile.
> 
> Edit: What Enevhar said.




Enevhar never actually said anything.  All he did was repeat your point that there is some problem with multi classing the ranger.  No actual specifics about what the problem is.

Again, for the umpteenth time, we played multiple rangers, some UA, some multi classed and none of them were ever a problem.  So, where's the problem here?  We just never had it happen.  And since three times now you aren't willing to actually pony up and give what the problem is, I'm very much getting the sense that the problem probably lies somewhere between the chair and the table.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 9, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> The pets are disposable.




So, I know this was forever ago in this thread, but I felt this need to respond to this. In my experience, this is completely false. Every beastmaster ranger I have ever seen has wanted to take a named pet, such as Umber the Wolf from my most recent Ranger, and keep them going throughout the entire game. 

In fact, losing Umber would have been utterly devastating to her character. Threatening Umber with damage or death was a tool used by many an evil individual, sometimes to great success. And, this was using the Revised Ranger (she initially didn’t want to go revised, but after a session or two as a PHB Beastmaster she asked to go ahead and shift over) which meant we all knew Umber could be easily brought back to life. 


In fact, I’m very glad I had the revised ranger on hand. Because, after initially offering it and her not wanting to play it (she was very new to the game and figured sticking with the PHB options would be far less confusing) when she turned around and asked for a solution because the class was not performing the way she expected I had a ready-made solution. I didn’t have to take time and make a solution, which I probably would have done poorly. So, I’m keeping the Revised Ranger for myself obviously, I just don’t see a good argument not to. 





Azzy said:


> The only thing good about the revision is what it did for the Beastmaster. *Many of the other features were just too good.* We don't need a revised ranger, we just "need" to revise the Beastmaster slightly.





People keep saying this, but it has not been my experience at all. 

Sure, it can be fairly powerful if you multi-class or dip, but that is something I try to discourage in my games anyways. The player I’ve been talking about, she still was weaker than a lot of the other people in the party most of the time (Swashbuckler Rogue, Assassin Rogue, Zealot Barbarian, Moon Druid were some of the more notable ones) and I gave upgrades to her and her companion because of story reasons on a semi-regular basis.

Now I grant, humanoids as a favored enemy, that one goes. I’ll switch back to the PHB rule of “if you pick humanoid instead pick 2 or 3 humanoid types that this applies to” but other than that, nothing I saw in the Revised Ranger dominated. I think the game was lv 5 to 20, over two years, so maybe if we had started lower we would have had problems, but I tend to get us out of the low levels relatively quickly since 5th level is such a power spike across the board. 





Hussar said:


> Enevhar never actually said anything.  All he did was repeat your point that there is some problem with multi classing the ranger.  No actual specifics about what the problem is.
> 
> Again, for the umpteenth time, we played multiple rangers, some UA, some multi classed and none of them were ever a problem.  So, where's the problem here?  We just never had it happen.  And since three times now you aren't willing to actually pony up and give what the problem is, I'm very much getting the sense that the problem probably lies somewhere between the chair and the table.





The problem, as I remember it being discussed over a year ago, was how front-loaded the Revised Ranger was for dipping. 

Getting Advantage on Initiative, a handful of utility abilities, bonus damage on humanoids, and a few other things was a massive list of benefits from a very small investment. In particular, I remember people talking about dipping rogues for all those goodies, and how advantage on initiative was the Assassin's thing, and they got it at 3rd level so the ranger shouldn't get it so early. 


However, I'm with you in that I've never seen it as a problem at the table. I've had far fewer rangers over the time the Revised Ranger has been out, but none of the multi-classed except maybe the Bard. 

Actually, I think my bigger problem is how I almost never see the ranger using their spells. I specifically remember one fight in which the Ranger I've talked about above used Lightning Arrow, and the spell was so disappointing in damaging the horde of enemies that I think she never used that spell again. Too many of the ranger spells are highly situational or just not effective enough to warrant using, which is why the own thing I've consistently homebrewed is giving rangers a spells prepared list like the paladin, where they can prepare from their entire list per day, 1/2 lv + wisdom mod. I've never seen player actually take advantage of that versatility, but I feel better knowing they have the option if they choose to use it.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 9, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> So, I know this was forever ago in this thread, but I felt this need to respond to this. In my experience, this is completely false. Every beastmaster ranger I have ever seen has wanted to take a named pet, such as Umber the Wolf from my most recent Ranger, and keep them going throughout the entire game.
> 
> In fact, losing Umber would have been utterly devastating to her character. Threatening Umber with damage or death was a tool used by many an evil individual, sometimes to great success. And, this was using the Revised Ranger (she initially didn’t want to go revised, but after a session or two as a PHB Beastmaster she asked to go ahead and shift over) which meant we all knew Umber could be easily brought back to life.




I agree that's how a lot of people play it and it makes sense that people would be drawn to that. My point was more about how I think the designers were thinking about it, and how the class is built in terms of what's most effective. 

The rule for replacing your companion is, "If the beast dies, you can obtain a new companion by spending 8 hours magically bonding with a beast that isn’t hostile to you and that meets the requirements." The Ranger starts with Speak with Animals and Animal Friendship on their spell list as first level spells, and they get locate animals as a second level spell. You can also better track animals at first level. This set of abilities tells me the intent was for the animal companions to be more disposable.  It was anticipated you'd use them, and locate more as the need arose, on a fairly regular basis. In fact I think the intent was you would have many animal friends along with you, and only one at a time would be designated your companion. 

As you mention, it hasn't worked out that way very often in actual play. But I suspect it was what the designers thought would happen. And, if played that way, I think the class becomes more powerful. The companion was supposed to protect you, and their hit points are essentially added to yours as a sort of buffer or temporary hit points, and it's mobility was supposed to be sort of temporary mobility for your abilities.. Instead it's become you as the protector of your companion, which can sometimes be more of a burden than a boon. 

If the companion were a summoned spirit animal that simply re-appeared after a long rest if it died, I bet it would play dramatically differently. Even though, in essence, it can already be almost played that way if you don't bond to the companion.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 9, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> So, I know this was forever ago in this thread, but I felt this need to respond to this. In my experience, this is completely false. Every beastmaster ranger I have ever seen has wanted to take a named pet, such as Umber the Wolf from my most recent Ranger, and keep them going throughout the entire game.
> 
> In fact, losing Umber would have been utterly devastating to her character. Threatening Umber with damage or death was a tool used by many an evil individual, sometimes to great success. And, this was using the Revised Ranger (she initially didn’t want to go revised, but after a session or two as a PHB Beastmaster she asked to go ahead and shift over) which meant we all knew Umber could be easily brought back to life.



Yes. Offering free resurrection only reveals you (the designer) hasn't understood the criticisms at all.

The proper response is to offer a robust pet that dies just as often as the other party members, which is to say, not often at all.

The proper response to THAT is to recognize this makes the Beastmaster more powerful than other subclasses, and say so clearly in a sidebar, making it a subclass that requires your DMs approval to play.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 9, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I agree that's how a lot of people play it and it makes sense that people would be drawn to that. My point was more about how I think the designers were thinking about it, and how the class is built in terms of what's most effective.
> 
> The rule for replacing your companion is, "If the beast dies, you can obtain a new companion by spending 8 hours magically bonding with a beast that isn’t hostile to you and that meets the requirements." The Ranger starts with Speak with Animals and Animal Friendship on their spell list as first level spells, and they get locate animals as a second level spell. You can also better track animals at first level. This set of abilities tells me the intent was for the animal companions to be more disposable.  It was anticipated you'd use them, and locate more as the need arose, on a fairly regular basis. In fact I think the intent was you would have many animal friends along with you, and only one at a time would be designated your companion.
> 
> ...





I see where you are coming from to a degree, but I don't think the spells were necessarily taken into account. Druid's and Bards have those same spells and there is little to know expectation that they will gather an army of animals to fight for them. 

Also, thematically, it would be very weird. The Beastmaster would become one of the only classes to utilize cannon fodder, and I can't imagine the callousness behind that image being the idea behind the design. It reminds me more of a joke from something like KoDT where the player is tricking innocent animals into dying for them. 

I think you are right they designed the class to be able to easily replace the animal companion, but I think that was more due to the amount of design space the companion took up and the likelihood of it dying as opposed to it being seen as the go to strategy to sacrifice them in battle.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 9, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> I see where you are coming from to a degree, but I don't think the spells were necessarily taken into account. Druid's and Bards have those same spells and there is little to know expectation that they will gather an army of animals to fight for them.




Well they're not called Beastmaster with fluff text of, "The Beast Master archetype embodies a friendship between the civilized races and the beasts of the wild."



> Also, thematically, it would be very weird. The Beastmaster would become one of the only classes to utilize cannon fodder




Necromancers, summoners, enchanters, these guys all use cannon fodder. This is more an alignment question, rather than a class question. If the task the Ranger is undertaking is with the goal of protecting a much greater harm to nature, I can see even good aligned Rangers sacrificing a few animal allies for the greater good as well. But, these are role playing considerations, and not really crunch rules considerations.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Aug 9, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> I see where you are coming from to a degree, but I don't think the spells were necessarily taken into account. Druid's and Bards have those same spells and there is little to know expectation that they will gather an army of animals to fight for them.
> 
> Also, thematically, it would be very weird. The Beastmaster would become one of the only classes to utilize cannon fodder, and I can't imagine the callousness behind that image being the idea behind the design. It reminds me more of a joke from something like KoDT where the player is tricking innocent animals into dying for them.
> 
> I think you are right they designed the class to be able to easily replace the animal companion, but I think that was more due to the amount of design space the companion took up and the likelihood of it dying as opposed to it being seen as the go to strategy to sacrifice them in battle.





Remember back in the day when Rangers could only be the Good alignments or Druids had to be Neutral? Not sending your animals to their deaths made sense. But now in 5E, where alignment means crap for most things, you can have that Chaotic Evil Beastmaster Ranger or Druid sending his army of animals to their meaningless deaths. I would never do that, and would not play with someone who would, but you know there are players out there like that.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 9, 2018)

Let me ask you this. If there were a Ranger cantrip which was something like this:

Beast Healing
Evocation Cantrip
Casting Time: Bonus Action
Range: 30'
Duration: Instantaneous
Effect: A living beast that has 0 hit points of your choice that you can see within range regains 1 hit point.

And a rules clarification which stated that a Beastmasters animal companion follows PC dying rules for death saving throws after they hit 0 hit points (which I think they already do?), would it change your perspective on how the Beastmaster Ranger is supposed to view their companion?


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 10, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Let me ask you this. If there were a Ranger cantrip which was something like this:
> 
> Beast Healing
> Evocation Cantrip
> ...



I have no direct feedback on the mechanics of this, but thank you for illustrating one way of how the devs could solve the issue in a SENSITIVE manner, listening to and respecting a significant part of those who like to play Ranger Beastmasters.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 10, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Let me ask you this. If there were a Ranger cantrip which was something like this:
> 
> Beast Healing
> Evocation Cantrip
> ...





No, because you already quoted the relevant flavor text 



Mistwell said:


> Well they're not called Beastmaster with fluff text of, "The Beast Master archetype *embodies a friendship between the civilized races and the beasts of the wild.*"





Your animal companion is a friend, a _companion_. Your cantrip makes it easier to keep the companion alive, which if the point is to send them to the slaughter and then get a new one, wouldn't make any sense, because you wouldn't care enough to spend the bonus action to heal them back up. 




Mistwell said:


> Necromancers, summoners, enchanters, these guys all use cannon fodder.




Interestingly enough, most of these don't use living beings, or beings who are permanently killed if they fall in battle. They also don't travel with these beings generally, but use magic to bring them forth when it is time to use them. All of this leads to a very different feel. It's the same reason "conjure animals" is different than using your companion, they don't "die" they vanish, because the bodies are not real, just given form by the magic.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 10, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> No, because you already quoted the relevant flavor text
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You are conflating two disparate things I was commenting on. Different topics. The cantrip idea was an alternative to using many companions, not something I'd combine with that concept. It's the opposite, as you noted. So...did you have a thought on it?






> Interestingly enough, most of these don't use living beings, or beings who are permanently killed if they fall in battle. They also don't travel with these beings generally, but use magic to bring them forth when it is time to use them. All of this leads to a very different feel. It's the same reason "conjure animals" is different than using your companion, they don't "die" they vanish, because the bodies are not real, just given form by the magic.




Enchanters would differ. Necromancers often kill the things they animate, so I am betting their animates would differ as well. Regardless, this is again down to tone and alignment, not rules questions. You don't seem to have a rules objection to what I wrote?

I do find it odd that people seem perfectly comfortable with the idea that a nation would recruit young humans to fight and die to protect that nation, replacing those who fall with new troops on a routine basis, but the idea that you'd do the same with animals is somehow not a fair concept for a fantasy game?  The animal knows there will be risk of death, and routinely fighting in highly dangerous situations. Why is that so dissimilar to a General recruiting new toops and replacing them as their previous ones fall? Why is the concept of fungibility of animal companions so anathema to the Ranger concept?


----------



## Nagol (Aug 10, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> You are conflating two disparate things I was commenting on. Different topics. The cantrip idea was an alternative to using many companions, not something I'd combine with that concept. It's the opposite, as you noted. So...did you have a thought on it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Informed consent.  The human can give it; the animal cannot -- unless you awaken every companion or do something similar with magic, I suppose..


----------



## Pauln6 (Aug 10, 2018)

One of my friends has dine some generic companion rules that grant a few extra hit dice, ability score increases (+1 at a time), a sub-type (e.g. guardian or scout) and some talents similar to Warlock invocations to add a bit of variety.   Given the criticism of beast companions, you could probably layer the lot on top without overpowering them.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 10, 2018)

Nagol said:


> Informed consent.  The human can give it; the animal cannot -- unless you awaken every companion or do something similar with magic, I suppose..




So you're saying they don't have informed consent to fight at all as an animal companion that takes orders from you? That they do not appreciate the concept of death? If that is the case you're essentially arguing the entire subclass isn't just underpowered but inherently evil as written right now. 

Also, the nature of the draft would tend to run counter to informed consent for war as well.


----------



## Nagol (Aug 10, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> So you're saying they don't have informed consent to fight at all as an animal companion that takes orders from you? That they do not appreciate the concept of death? If that is the case you're essentially arguing the entire subclass isn't just underpowered but inherently evil as written right now.
> 
> Also, the nature of the draft would tend to run counter to informed consent for war as well.




You asked why people are more upset about the use of animals than recruited human soldiers.  I answered.  

Fundamentally, the animals are considered 'innocent' as in not capable of giving consent because of mental deficiency.

Conscription/draft still requires some level of consent (hence dodging and conscientious objection) as well as some level of societal imperative which provides a basis of legitimacy.  This somewhat applies to animals as well - e.g. cavalry horses.  Note that cavalry horses are/were treated much more like companions by their riders and not offered up as sacrifice. People as a whole tend to view co-opting animals for other dangerous/direct combat roles (dogs, dolphins, whatever) as inappropriate/mean.

Does this make the subclass as a whole evil? *Shrug* don't care.


----------



## Pauln6 (Aug 10, 2018)

So I did a quick template on my 12th level PCs cat familiar using the companion homebrew and it gave me:

S3. D16. C10. I6. W13. Ch7. 
HD 5d4, hp 15
AC:13 (AC16 when taking the Dodge action) 
Speed: 45', Climb 35'
Darkvision 30'
Archetype: scout
Skills: Perception +5 (Advantage on Perception checks using smell), Stealth +11
Saves: Wisdom +5 (Advantage on Wisdom saves within 10' of mistress)
Co-operation: Use Help action to aid mistress as a bonus action
Attacks: Claws +2 to hit, 1 damage
Talents :
Acute Senses (No advantage to attack beast if stealthed)
Expertise (Stealth) 
Slink Away: (Use reaction to move half speed and Hide)
Swiftness:  (+5 movement) 

A Beast Companion (admittedly a cat makes a terrible beast companion) for a level 12 Ranger could be:

S3. D18. C10. I3. W14. Ch7. 
HD 5d4, hp 60
AC:18 (AC18 when taking the Dodge action) 
Speed: 45', Climb 35'
Darkvision 30'
Archetype: scout
Skills: Acrobatics +7, Perception +5, Stealth +11
Saves: Wisdom +5 (Advantage on Wisdom saves within 10' of mistress)
Co-operation: Use Help action to aid mistress as a bonus action
 Exceptional Training :
Attacks:  Claws  x2 +3, 5 damage
Talents :
Acute Senses (No advantage to attack beast if stealthed)
Expertise (Stealth) 
Slink Away: (Use reaction to move half speed and Hide)
Swiftness:  (+5 movement) 

Even layering on the extra hit dice to Ranger companion would not be unbalancing considering that hp loss seems to be part of their problem.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 10, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> You are conflating two disparate things I was commenting on. Different topics. The cantrip idea was an alternative to using many companions, not something I'd combine with that concept. It's the opposite, as you noted. So...did you have a thought on it?




Apologies, when you asked "would it change your perspective on how the Beastmaster Ranger is supposed to view their companion?" I thought you were continuing the same line of thought. 

I think it is a fine little ability, not sure it helps the PHB Beastmaster with some of their bigger issues in the action economy. But, if one of your big problems is the companion dying too often, this is a nice work around. 





Mistwell said:


> Enchanters would differ. Necromancers often kill the things they animate, so I am betting their animates would differ as well. Regardless, this is again down to tone and alignment, not rules questions. You don't seem to have a rules objection to what I wrote?
> 
> I do find it odd that people seem perfectly comfortable with the idea that a nation would recruit young humans to fight and die to protect that nation, replacing those who fall with new troops on a routine basis, but the idea that you'd do the same with animals is somehow not a fair concept for a fantasy game?  *The animal knows there will be risk of death*, and routinely fighting in highly dangerous situations. Why is that so dissimilar to a General recruiting new toops and replacing them as their previous ones fall? Why is the concept of fungibility of animal companions so anathema to the Ranger concept?





You know, I wondered why you put enchanters into that list, double checked and I once more was getting Enchantment and Transmutation mixed up. But let's tackle these in some semblance of an order. 

I have no disagreement in your interpretation of RAW. Like you said this is all a tone and morality question. 

Enchanters mind control people. There is not a spell that allows them to control another person or beast until the 5th level spell "Dominate Person" and that only lasts for a minute. So, you will not have a long term fighting companion as an enchanter most of the time, usually they will end up simply turning someone who was trying to kill them against the other enemies. Since it was kill or be killed, you have few qualms about that in general. Now, if you are constantly mind controlling the blacksmith into fighting for you, removing his own will, we've veered hard into evil territory, and that is a for the DM and table to discuss the tone and what they find acceptable at the table. 


Necromancers do often raise the bodies of those they killed, but again this starts with a life or death struggle. A person was trying to kill them, they failed, and then the necromancer utilizes their remains. However, everyone would generally acknowledge that the created zombie or skeleton is not the same as the individual killed, and is not a being with their own will and mind. They are no longer living, and if a person murdered the waitress simply to create a zombie servant, we are back into hard evil territory as opposed to utilizing the body of that orc that tried to decapitate you. 


As to your final paragraph as to the difference between a nation and the ranger, I bolded the part you got completely wrong. The animal does not know there is a high risk of death. Most animals do not have the mental capacity to consider the future in that manner, nor can they end up protesting as a young soldier might do. Also, conscripting young men into a meat grinder war is not something that is generally viewed favorably by a nations populace, unless the war itself is highly supported. In which case the young men might volunteer seeing it as a duty towards their people. We are talking an entirely different set of standards here. To get closer to what we are talking about with a ranger constantly luring animals into fighting and dying for them, we would probably need to devolve into talking about child soldiers, since the smartest animals are generally closest in comparison to young children. And, once more, we delve into hard evil territory if we talk about a nation recruiting child soldiers into an endless war. 


So, once more, from my perspective, there is nothing wrong with your interpretation of the rules of the game. However, there are some serious moral implications to utilizing a constant stream of living, feeling creatures to die simply to save your own hide. And those moral implications go completely against the traditional view of the Ranger and their Animal Companion in the fantasy setting. 





Mistwell said:


> So you're saying they don't have informed consent to fight at all as an animal companion that takes orders from you? That they do not appreciate the concept of death? If that is the case you're essentially arguing the entire subclass isn't just underpowered but inherently evil as written right now.
> 
> Also, the nature of the draft would tend to run counter to informed consent for war as well.





The nature of the draft does, which is part of why the draft was so reviled. 

As for the entire subclass, yeah, it could be argued to skirt that line of acceptability. But, a single companion and a powerful bond between the character and the companion where both strive to protect and help the other is a very different type of situation than the ranger who sends "wolf #7" into the fight knowing that after they die they will just walk into the woods and convince "wolf #8" to fight with them. That becomes heavily exploitative and pushes it over the edge. 

And that is the line that I'm arguing about. The difference between having a single companion and devoting resources to keeping them alive and well, and just having a conveyor belt of disposable bodies.  It is actually one of the things I really like about the Revised Ranger's design is that there is some sort of mystic bond between the Ranger and their animal companion which allows the ranger to call them back from the dead if the worst happens. The way we interpreted that in my home game was that the two had bonded their very souls, and that as long as one lived, the other lived within them. Luckily the ranger never died during that campaign, but I could see it being easier to raise them as long as their companion lived, but that would require a house rule.


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Aug 10, 2018)

Also the traditional image of the beast master is a guy with his wolf or tiger (with a couple of ferrets and an eagle--serious how did find familiar not get on the ranger's spell list?), and wolves and tigers are pretty.  Don't discount the power of cute!  If the image was of a ranger with a nasty feral hog or crocodile AC, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

In the first world, most people tend to encounter animals as pets or pests, and utility animals are fairly rare.  That means that a lot of people don't have the experience of valuing an animal for what it can do as much as an existential regard.  From that mindset, a ranger that allows his/her AC to die is in fact Michael Vick evil.  This has grown over the years, so the "animal companion as minesweeper" so common in the 1980's and '90's is abhorrent to a lot of people now.  I think WotC underestimated how much the survivability (as opposed to replaceability) of the AC meant to a lot of people.  If they had put on the fig leaf of "the beast master summons a fey spirit and makes it into an animal companion", things might be different (or not).


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 10, 2018)

Nagol said:


> You asked why people are more upset about the use of animals than recruited human soldiers.  I answered.
> 
> Fundamentally, the animals are considered 'innocent' as in not capable of giving consent because of mental deficiency.




Your answer doesn't address the question however.  Right now, under existing rules, your animal companion fights for you, and may die. Indeed, that's the major complaint, they die too easily. So discard any change in tone or alignment, discard my argument about using animal companions up more often, just as they are played right now under your argument it would be unethical to play a beastmaster Ranger. Just full stop, taking an "innocent" panther into the depths of a dungeon at certain risk of harmful and painful fighting and possible death, that is currently unethical and a good aligned character simply should never play a beastmaster Ranger.

You can see the problem with this perspective now, right?


----------



## Nagol (Aug 10, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Your answer doesn't address the question however.  Right now, under existing rules, your animal companion fights for you, and may die. Indeed, that's the major complaint, they die too easily. So discard any change in tone or alignment, discard my argument about using animal companions up more often, just as they are played right now under your argument it would be unethical to play a beastmaster Ranger. Just full stop, taking an "innocent" panther into the depths of a dungeon at certain risk of harmful and painful fighting and possible death, that is currently unethical and a good aligned character simply should never play a beastmaster Ranger.
> 
> You can see the problem with this perspective now, right?





I can see the problem when using a 21st century urban viewpoint, yes.  I grew up on a farm.  We ate our chickens.  Cows and pigs came in little and left much bigger destined for slaughter.  There was fresh meat in the fridge.  I'm used to seeing some animals as exploitable resources.

I see the collection/taming of a dangerous beast and its use in the field as more neutral.  Evil would be reserved for wilful infliction of pain/mistreatment for the pleasure of its master.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 10, 2018)

Nagol said:


> I can see the problem when using a 21st century urban viewpoint, yes.  I grew up on a farm.  We ate our chickens.  Cows and pigs came in little and left much bigger destined for slaughter.  There was fresh meat in the fridge.  I'm used to seeing some animals as exploitable resources.
> 
> I see the collection/taming of a dangerous beast and its use in the field as more neutral.  Evil would be reserved for wilful infliction of pain/mistreatment for the pleasure of its master.




I'm a vegetarian living in urban Los Angeles in the 21st century, and *I* am the one advocating animal companions were likely intended as more of an exploitable resource which frequently was replaced over a long rest.


----------



## Nagol (Aug 10, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I'm a vegetarian living in urban Los Angeles in the 21st century, and *I* am the one advocating animal companions were likely intended as more of an exploitable resource which frequently was replaced over a long rest.




I don't disagree with your stance at all.  It is eminently plausible.  People in general like their furry friends and object to seeing them as merely expendable dragon fodder.  It offends their sensibilities.  If you press someone as to why, the answer is typically the one I gave above.


*ETA:

I don't see the wilful collection of dangerous beasts and using them as infecting the subclass with evil.  It seems to be more neutral (I'll take this danger and make it into a tool -- even if it is likely to break soon enough).


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 11, 2018)

Very few D&D gamers are professional farmers who view animals as "exploitative resources". 

If they designed the Beastmaster for this audience they... need their mental health checked.

The Beastmaster class emphatically needs a pet that doesn't die and takes its own action.

Anything less than this and the design is a hard failure. 

Given this, the best solution is to give up on balancing the subclass and instead make it DM optional. 

When balance is paramount effectively having two characters is too strong, and the subclass should be disregarded.

In every other case, this is the solution that players want.


----------



## Nagol (Aug 11, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Very few D&D gamers are professional farmers who view animals as "exploitative resources".
> 
> If they designed the Beastmaster for this audience they... need their mental health checked.
> 
> ...




Well obviously it's not a hard failure -- people use it.  You may not *like* it.  It may offend _you_, but unless it is rejected by the player base en masse, it is not a failure.  Since indications are Ranger as a whole is reasonably well-played and Beastmaster gets use, it may not be the best class, but it is a working class.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 11, 2018)

By that metric we can't complain about or discuss anything. 

*shrug*


----------



## Nagol (Aug 11, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> By that metric we can't complain about or discuss anything.
> 
> *shrug*




I have complaints wrt to the class and subclass; I just don't equate my complaints with the class being a hard failure.  I have never liked the whole "my cohort/ally/companion is merely an extension of me and can only do something as my proxy when I choose to use that action".  I thought is was lazy and ill-thought mechanic when it appeared in 4e and I still think it is lazy and ill-thought today.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 11, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> By that metric we can't complain about or discuss anything.
> 
> *shrug*




You could complain about it with less absolutist hyperbole.


----------



## OB1 (Aug 11, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Your answer doesn't address the question however.  Right now, under existing rules, your animal companion fights for you, and may die. Indeed, that's the major complaint, they die too easily. So discard any change in tone or alignment, discard my argument about using animal companions up more often, just as they are played right now under your argument it would be unethical to play a beastmaster Ranger. Just full stop, taking an "innocent" panther into the depths of a dungeon at certain risk of harmful and painful fighting and possible death, that is currently unethical and a good aligned character simply should never play a beastmaster Ranger.
> 
> You can see the problem with this perspective now, right?






Mistwell said:


> I'm a vegetarian living in urban Los Angeles in the 21st century, and *I* am the one advocating animal companions were likely intended as more of an exploitable resource which frequently was replaced over a long rest.




I too think that frequently replacing your beast is one of the ways that the Beastmaster was meant to be played, and works well for neutral character alignments.  Ultimately, if you choose to use your companion as a weapon, it means they will die fairly regularly, and the class is designed to not give you an easy out for that (though the UA ranger does).  The same would be true to an even greater extent if you train your own companion.  The fact that a trained animal acts on it's own would reduce it's survivability compared to the Beastmaster Ranger companion, and would be nearly useless past Tier 1.

But the other way to play the beast master is as it's true protector and friend.  In this case, you should infrequently use the beast in combat, getting primary use out of it the way an Army Ranger might get use out of a drone, as a way to scout ahead and provide targets and the opportunity to ambush your foes.  In this play style, the bonus's that the companion gets in comparison to what a PC who merely trains a pet are substantial, giving your companion much higher levels of survivability as it scouts ahead for you or for the occasional combat that it comes in to help out.  At higher levels, it can help out in more combats per day, but still isn't supposed to be involved in every round (hence why at 7th level you get the ability to disengage, dodge and help as a bonus).  

While not appealing to everyone, this second style of play, where you are the beast's protector (not wielder) for some is a huge feature of the class, not a bug.  Having an animal to protect and worry about in combat is what makes it fun.  This, of course would be the more good aligned way to play a beast master.  

I do feel that some DM assistance is helpful for this style, such as allowing the beast to start all combats taking dodge and auto taking dodge if not give another action, or to start combat "off the board" such as the way Vex's bear in Critical Role did, so that a AOE doesn't take out the beast before it can act.  But even with a tough DM, a player thinking protection for her companion first should be able to find ways to keep the worst from happening by being careful about where the companion is in the marching order and when and how it is used.  

It takes a different way of thinking about how to play the class compared to previous iterations of it, and I'm wondering if as D&D has picked up more and more new players to the game over the last few years without the baggage of previous versions, that the WotC team has seen satisfaction level with the class and subclass rise.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 11, 2018)

So this thread has meandered quite a bit although I've tried to follow most of it.

I do find the last few pages quite interesting actually, as it's getting to the core of what people envision the Beastmaster should be conceptually. And there is an interesting dilemma with regards to concept versus design.

This is a generalization but the two main concepts seem to be:

a) The beast is a loyal and faithful companion that is protected by the ranger. The companion is essentially another member of the party.
b) The beast is a weapon that the ranger directs. It is expendable and can be replaced. In this case, the companion is essentially a Pokemon (like the paladin's pokemount from 3ed).

I would argue that the most people probably envision "a" when they think Beastmaster. This is the iconic grizzled warrior striding through the forest with his wolf/tiger/hound/velociraptor at his side. There are many instances of this relationship between man and beast throughout literature.

That said, it also poses quite possibly the most difficult design challenge to solve with regards to game mechanics in which the goal is for each character to have a completely unique role but also be "balanced" against each other. As soon as you introduce additional actions, health, etc to a character, the balance gets skewed very quickly. For homework, look up a mathematician named Lanchester if you want to see some of the math behind why. To compensate, the designers did what many consider to be an effective "neutering" of the subclass (no pun intended): require the player's action to direct the companion.

The other option - expendable minions that can be replaced - is much easier to solve. The companion can easily be balanced with a number of uses per rest or a mechanic like the Conjure Animal spells. This isn't without precedent either. This Beastmaster essentially emulates Aquaman in a sense.

However, this option completely removes the attachment to the animal companion, and my guess is that a large percentage of the player base would have rallied against this since the mechanic completely undermines the iconic "man's best friend" relationship (I don't recall if the Beastmaster ever got this type of design during the Next playtest).

As a designer myself, I would have been ok with the expendable/uses per day option. I understand the design challenges and given the purveyance of magic in 5E, I wouldn't be phased by a "summoning" narrative to explain the mechanic. At the same time, I completely understand the want for a class in which the animal companion is the primary driver of the class, and one that goes beyond mechanics. I also understand that "summoning" the companion may break that emotional connection to the companion for a lot of players.

Anyway, I find it a really interesting discussion, mainly because the narrative behind the class and the mechanics are completely intertwined and greatly affect each other.


----------



## OB1 (Aug 12, 2018)

GlassJaw said:


> So this thread has meandered quite a bit although I've tried to follow most of it.
> 
> This is a generalization but the two main concepts seem to be:
> 
> ...





I'd argue that the problem comes from people who want A with the first part of B.  Because the companion can't be both a sword and a protected companion without it actually being another party member.

But you've hit it right on that it's the way the narrative and mechanics interact that make it such a fascinating problem.  For example, the discarded UA fix creates a perverse situation where you are incentivized to constantly allow your companion to be killed to gain the maximum mechanical benefit from it.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 12, 2018)

OB1 said:


> I'd argue that the problem comes from people who want A with the first part of B.  Because the companion can't be both a sword and a protected companion without it actually being another party member.
> 
> But you've hit it right on that it's the way the narrative and mechanics interact that make it such a fascinating problem.  For example, the discarded UA fix creates a perverse situation where you are incentivized to constantly allow your companion to be killed to gain the maximum mechanical benefit from it.




The UA also, and this was another big thing I liked, allowed the companion to noticeably grow in strength. Not just "here's 4 hp every level" but actually increasing it's stats and allowing a companion that has been with a legendary figure t itself be far physically and even mentally superior to others of its kind.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 12, 2018)

GlassJaw said:


> So this thread has meandered quite a bit although I've tried to follow most of it.
> 
> I do find the last few pages quite interesting actually, as it's getting to the core of what people envision the Beastmaster should be conceptually. And there is an interesting dilemma with regards to concept versus design.
> 
> ...



Thank you.

One question however:

Where do you stand on the notion that a Man's Best Friend subclass can be okay despite being powerful, if the subclass is gated (DM approval needed, somewhat like Wild Mage)?


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 12, 2018)

OB1 said:


> I'd argue that the problem comes from people who want A with the first part of B.  Because the companion can't be both a sword and a protected companion without it actually being another party member.



Unless... you refuse to call it a problem. 

The real question is: can lots of groups handle one player with two characters? 

I bet the answer is an unreserved "yes".


----------



## OB1 (Aug 12, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> The UA also, and this was another big thing I liked, allowed the companion to noticeably grow in strength. Not just "here's 4 hp every level" but actually increasing it's stats and allowing a companion that has been with a legendary figure t itself be far physically and even mentally superior to others of its kind.




But this is already the case, only the PHB Ranger is able to do it with a new animal with just 8 hours of mystical bonding

Regular Hawk - HP 1, AC 13, Talons +5, 1 dmg, Perception +4
20 Level Ranger Hawk Companion - HP 80, AC 19, Talons +11, 7 dmg, Perception +10

Regular Giant Wolf Spider - HP 11, AC 13, Bite +3, 1d6 dmg, Perception +3, Stealth +7
20th Level Ranger Gian Wolf Spider - HP 80, AC 19, Bite +9, 1d6+6 dmg, Perception +9, Stealth +13

Those both seem like pretty legendary versions of the beasts to me.  That said, when I was thinking about it, I realized there is a way to provide more options for the way to play the Beastmaster without needing a revision or errata to the class.  Just add some new spells.  It seems that since Xanathar's Guide did the expanded Ranger spell list, people's concern about the Hunter Ranger went down.  

What if a set of Beast Master specific spells were published?  The added bonus here being that even if you are currently playing a Beastmaster you could add these spells when you level up.  Here is a first draft of what I think these could look like.  Because spells known are such a precious resource to a Ranger, I've tried to make these really worth the cost for a player wanting to beef up their animal companion.

*1st Level Ranger Spells*
Command Beast - 1 Min, Concentration, Bonus Action, self - When you cast this spell, you gain an additional action that you can use only to command your Beast Companion
Protect Beast - Action, Touch - You touch a beast and it gains 2 times your level in temporary Hit Points

*2nd Level Ranger Spells*
Revivify Beast - Action, Touch - You touch a beast that has beed dead for less than 1 minute and it returns to life with 1 HP
Alter Beast - Action, Touch, 1 Hour - You touch a beast and it gains one of the following benefits, It's natural weapons become + 1 magical weapons, It's AC increases by 2, the DC of any of it's abilities increases by the caster's proficiency bonus

*3rd Level Ranger Spells*
Find Greater Companion - 1 Hour Casting time - You call out to the wild to find a new beast companion that can be Large and of a CR equal to 1/4 of your level (rounded down).  The beast must be native to the area that you are in and able to reach your location.  If you are in your favored terrain, you pick the beast that appears, otherwise the DM chooses from what is appropriate for the area.

*4th Level Ranger Spells*
Awakened Beast - 1 Hour Casting Time, Permanent Duration - You forge a permanent telepathic bond with your companion.  As long as you are on the same plane of existence, you can communicate telepathically as well as see through each others eyes at will.  The beast can also add 6 points to it's ability scores, either all to one or split between several.  The awakening lasts until your companion is killed.  If later brought back to life, the spell must be cast again.
Reincarnate Beast - 1 Hour Casting Time, Permanent - You focus on the spirit of a beast dead for not more than 30 days.  The beast is reincarnated, appearing from nearby at the end of the 1 hour casting time.  

*5th Level Ranger Spells*
Heroic Beast - Action, Touch, 1 Hour - You touch a beast and it gains all of the following benefits.  4 Times your level in Temporary Hit points, natural weapons become +3 magical weapons, AC increases by 5, DC of any of it's abilities increase by casters proficiency bonus and it is Hasted per the spell.  You also gain an additional action that you can use only to command your beast companion.




CapnZapp said:


> Unless... you refuse to call it a problem.
> 
> The real question is: can lots of groups handle one player with two characters?
> 
> I bet the answer is an unreserved "yes".




Sure, the group I play in (rather than DM) has a "bicycle" character that we roll to see who is playing at the beginning of each session.  Our very own "pet" Goliath Barbarian.  Of course, he get's added into the encounter math and get's his share of the treasure and xp.  Would your PC power level animal companion do the same?


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 12, 2018)

OB1 said:


> But this is already the case, only the PHB Ranger is able to do it with a new animal with just 8 hours of mystical bonding
> 
> Regular Hawk - HP 1, AC 13, Talons +5, 1 dmg, Perception +4
> 20 Level Ranger Hawk Companion - HP 80, AC 19, Talons +11, 7 dmg, Perception +10
> ...




The problem with fixing it via spells is that those spells still take actions and spell slots, and from a balance perspective it becomes odd to create a "fix" for a class that requires the expenditure of resources on a regular basis. 


As for the beasts, I think the revised still comes out ahead for me, because we are talking about a larger portion of the Statblock. 

Regular Hawk - HP 1 (1d4-1), AC 13, Talons +5, 1 dmg, Perception +4
STR 5 (-3)  DEX 16 (+3)  CON 8 (-1) INT 2 (-4) WIS 14 (+2) CHA 6 (-2)

PHB: 20 Level Ranger Hawk Companion - HP 80 (1d4-1), AC 19, Talons +11, 7 dmg, Perception +10
STR 5 (-3)  DEX 16 (+3)  CON 8 (-1) INT 2 (-4) WIS 14 (+2) CHA 6 (-2)

Revised: 20 Level Ranger Hawk Companion - HP 36 (18d4+0) AC 21 Talons +11 7 dmg, Perception +10, Stealth +11, Sleight of Hand +11, All Saves +6
STR 5 (-3)  DEX 20 (+5)  CON 10 (+0) INT 2 (-4) WIS 18 (+4) CHA 6 (-2)

So, in this example, the hp math does not favor the Hawk. Low con and low HD, that hurt your HP. However, since the hawk can use their HD per the rules of the PHB ranger, they can recover far better on a short rest. AC and saves are far higher, and the revised Hawk can hide and steal things from enemies via the new skills I gave it. It isn't great in a fight, but 7 damage is pitiful no matter how you cut it. 


Regular Giant Wolf Spider - HP 12 (2d8+2), AC 13, Bite +3, 1d6+1 dmg (DC 11 vs poison), Perception +3, Stealth +7
STR 12 (+1) DEX 16 (+3) CON 13 (+1) INT 3 (-4) WIS 12 (+1) CHA 4(-3)

PHB 20th Level Ranger Gian Wolf Spider - HP 80 (2d8+2), AC 19, Bite +9, 1d6+7 (DC 17 vs poison) dmg, Perception +9, Stealth +13
STR 12 (+1) DEX 16 (+3) CON 13 (+1) INT 3 (-4) WIS 12 (+1) CHA 4(-3)

Revised 20th Level Ranger Gian Wolf Spider - HP 152 (19d8+57), AC 20, Bite +9, 1d6+9 (DC 19 vs poison) dmg, Perception +7, Stealth +16, Athletics +9, Intimidation +3/+9, +6 to all saves
STR 16 (+3) DEX 18 (+4) CON 16 (+3) INT 4 (-3) WIS 12 (+1) CHA 4(-3)

This one shows the disparity quite a bit more, and also may I just say, some of the assumptions and math behind these monsters are odd to me. For example, I did not expect spider's to use strength as their primary attack attribute, and figuring out that they have expertise in stealth was a fun little nugget. But here is a monster that is tougher, smarter, faster, and stronger than not only standard versions, but even the beast masters pet. Now, I could see the argument that adding 150 extra hp to the party pool is highly significant, but their damage is still crap, and a DM could easily adjust the game math to account for it.  

I guess in the end, maybe I just find the Revised Ranger process more interesting too. Picking new skills and adjusting their base stats gives a feel of growth that simply multiplying and adding numbers doesn't provide. And it allows the ranger to craft more of a story for their pet. It isn't just a hawk, it is a hawk that can hide and steal. It isn't just a spider, it is a spider that grapples and scares. That tiny bit of extra depth makes a big difference in making them seem like far more than their associated species.


----------



## OB1 (Aug 12, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> The problem with fixing it via spells is that those spells still take actions and spell slots, and from a balance perspective it becomes odd to create a "fix" for a class that requires the expenditure of resources on a regular basis.
> 
> 
> As for the beasts, I think the revised still comes out ahead for me, because we are talking about a larger portion of the Statblock.




The spells aren't there to "fix" the class, they are there to allow for a different style of play, one that comes at a cost of not being able to do other things you could do with your spell selection.  That seems both a fair compromise and a potential solution that could actually be implemented by WotC in a future supplement.  Any thoughts to the spells I suggested themselves?

I agree that the UA beasts come out ahead, which is typical for UA material compared to published material.  My point was that the PHB Beastmaster beasts are still far ahead of the regular curve and provide a useful tool.


----------



## CTurbo (Aug 12, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> PHB: 20 Level Ranger Hawk Companion - HP 80 (1d4-1), AC 19, Talons +11, 7 dmg, Perception +10
> STR 5 (-3)  DEX 16 (+3)  CON 8 (-1) INT 2 (-4) WIS 14 (+2) CHA 6 (-2)
> 
> Revised: 20 Level Ranger Hawk Companion - HP 36 (18d4+0) AC 21 Talons +11 7 dmg, Perception +10, Stealth +11, Sleight of Hand +11, All Saves +6
> ...





Put +4 into Con instead of Wis and you just doubled it's hp. Even going +2 Con and +2 Wis increases it's hp by 50%. 



I do generally agree with what you're saying though.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 13, 2018)

OB1 said:


> Sure, the group I play in (rather than DM) has a "bicycle" character that we roll to see who is playing at the beginning of each session.  Our very own "pet" Goliath Barbarian.  Of course, he get's added into the encounter math and get's his share of the treasure and xp.  Would your PC power level animal companion do the same?



Of course not.

I'm talking about an animal companion, not a classed player character (CPC). 

This AC is sturdy enough to be able to hold its own in melee, and takes actions independently, but is otherwise significantly less powerful than a CPC.

The point is: nerfing it to be balanced makes it too weak, no frail, to automaton-like. So let it be overpowered. 

That does not mean it must be _wildly_ overpowered. It's not exactly the d20 Cohort feat we're talking about, if you played 3rd edition... 

Only just OP enough that a sidebar explaining its unbalanced nature is warranted.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 13, 2018)

But, again, the UA companion does what you want [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION].  It's strong enough not to get killed in combat (and, simply adding 3 death saves to the companion fixes that completely) and deals enough damage that it makes for a decent second attack.  Remember, the UA companion is attacking twice per round, typically - once on its turn and once on the ranger's turn.  That makes a pretty big difference.

See, I've actually played in groups with the the UA beast master.  If it wasn't the top damage dealer in a given fight, it was probably second best.  It consistently pumped out very comparable damage to any other martial character.  

AFAIC, the class is fixed.  Job done.  I would suggest that instead of theory crafting, actually TRACK the damage done by your characters for a couple of sessions.  I think you'll find that the UA beast master ranger is fine.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 13, 2018)

My apologies - we seem to misunderstand each other.

I don't have any complaints against the UA companion per ser (well, I do, but only that it desperately needs its multiclassing balance design pass)

I do complain about it only being in UA, however. It needs to see print to matter.

More relevant to this thread, however, is how JC is slapping our collective face from his high horse. I hate his smug dismissive talk of secrets as if it was all people needed and was too stupid to find out for themselves.


----------



## Eric V (Aug 13, 2018)

Hussar said:


> AFAIC, the class is fixed.  Job done.  I would suggest that instead of theory crafting, actually TRACK the damage done by your characters for a couple of sessions.  I think you'll find that the UA beast master ranger is fine.




I tend to agree.  I would have liked it tweaked a bit more, but it's good the way it is.  I played one at 9th level, and was fairly middle of the pack, maybe slightly more on dpr.  Loved that my companion was sturdy enough, and was worth losing Extra Attack.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 13, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> My apologies - we seem to misunderstand each other.
> 
> I don't have any complaints against the UA companion per ser (well, I do, but only that it desperately needs its multiclassing balance design pass)
> 
> ...




Why?  Why does it need to see print to matter?  Are you insisting on AL rules at your home table?  If not, then why would it matter in the slightest?


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Aug 13, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Why?  Why does it need to see print to matter?  Are you insisting on AL rules at your home table?  If not, then why would it matter in the slightest?




No, because like has already been said, anything in a UA article is not finished material and is still potentially unbalanced. If it works for you and your group, that is fine, but for a lot of us, we only want the finished version of the material to use in our groups.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 13, 2018)

CTurbo said:


> Put +4 into Con instead of Wis and you just doubled it's hp. Even going +2 Con and +2 Wis increases it's hp by 50%.
> 
> 
> 
> I do generally agree with what you're saying though.




Thought about increasing the Con more, but I figured if I was actually playing that character, I wouldn't bother too much. Getting the increased wisdom for better scouting fits more with what I would use the hawk for. It was a point I was debating a lot though. 





OB1 said:


> The spells aren't there to "fix" the class, they are there to allow for a different style of play, one that comes at a cost of not being able to do other things you could do with your spell selection.  That seems both a fair compromise and a potential solution that could actually be implemented by WotC in a future supplement.  Any thoughts to the spells I suggested themselves?
> 
> I agree that the UA beasts come out ahead, which is typical for UA material compared to published material.  My point was that the PHB Beastmaster beasts are still far ahead of the regular curve and provide a useful tool.





The spells themselves are pretty much direct fixes to the problems that have been reported about the PHB Beastmaster. 




> Command Beast - 1 Min, Concentration, Bonus Action, self - When you cast this spell, you gain an additional action that you can use only to command your Beast Companion




At the cost of one spell and your concentration slot you can actually act on the same turn your companion does. A beastmaster will either find this neccessary (so they can feel like a complete character) or too high of cost and never take it. Additionally, lasting single minute means they will need to redo it every battle. This comes at the cost of Hail of Arrows or Hunter's Mark, and if we compare to the Hunter just in terms of damage, it is kind of ridiculous. Compare to the Wizard's Familiar for utility and it is also egregious. 

It is a "fix" to the complaint that hurts them more than the problem itself, even with me acknowledging that PHB Beastmasters can attack twice by 5th level, unlike Revised Beastmasters. 



> 5th Level Ranger Spells
> Heroic Beast - Action, Touch, 1 Hour - You touch a beast and it gains all of the following benefits. 4 Times your level in Temporary Hit points, natural weapons become +3 magical weapons, AC increases by 5, DC of any of it's abilities increase by casters proficiency bonus and it is Hasted per the spell. You also gain an additional action that you can use only to command your beast companion.




I moved this here because it is the improved version of the Command beast spell, and it sure does a lot. Jumps a beasts Hp up to 160 (if using PHB), gives it a +3 to all attacks, increases its AC by a total of 7 points (Giving your average beast an AC of 26) and it is hasted... which other than the AC and bonus to Dex saves is kind of worthless since it doesn't have it's own actions to take. I guess the idea is that you command it to attack and it will attack twice instead of once, plus increasing a speed from "faster than most of the party" to "really faster than most of the party". Looking like a big 4d4+22 from the Wolf which is poor damage at 17th level. 

Other than being hasted is doesn't help any saves though, which might hurt a lot. It's powerful, but worth it? I'm not sure when compared to whatever tricks the 17th level ranger has gathered up. Best used to make a big tank to soak attacks from enemies, since dodging with that kind of AC makes you really hard to hit. 




> Protect Beast - Action, Touch - You touch a beast and it gains 2 times your level in temporary Hit Points




Back to 1st level... A spell to give a squishy target 4 hp is not going to get chosen, especially since the ranger can't get many spells and can never forget a spell they learned to learn a different spell. This will never be worth it when compared to Cure Wounds, Hunter's Mark, or Fog Cloud. 




> 2nd Level Ranger Spells
> Revivify Beast - Action, Touch - You touch a beast that has been dead for less than 1 minute and it returns to life with 1 HP
> 
> 4th Level Ranger Spells
> Reincarnate Beast - 1 Hour Casting Time, Permanent - You focus on the spirit of a beast dead for not more than 30 days. The beast is reincarnated, appearing from nearby at the end of the 1 hour casting time.




Interestingly, the 2nd level one is far more useful than the 4th level one in most circumstances. As a ranger, if I took that spell, I would hold back a 2nd level slot constantly for that usage, and then I would have no need for the 4th level slot. Also, any healing spell can do the same thing as long as the beast has not failed their death saves. 

But again, Ranger spellcasting is highly limited, and this takes the place of spells that the ranger might otherwise use. And, in the face of the Revised Ranger ability to simply perform a ritual to resummon the spirit of their companion, why would I accept these instead of that? I am assuming as well that their is some sort of material component cost, since all spells which reverse death have a material cost to them. 



> Alter Beast - Action, Touch, 1 Hour - You touch a beast and it gains one of the following benefits, It's natural weapons become + 1 magical weapons, It's AC increases by 2, the DC of any of it's abilities increases by the caster's proficiency bonus




A second level spell that will get cast... almost never. You have the choice between giving +1 to hit and damage to one of your weakest damage dealers, increasing the AC by 2 which might be worth it, but a second level slot is a lot for that, or increasing their DCs, by 3 or more. 

So, the DC one is likely the most powerful effect, but your companion needs to have a DC ability to begin with, and it needs to be worth the increase. Increasing the spider's DC so that it is more likely to deal an extra 2d6 of poison isn't really worth it, and unless you've cast the spell twice, your spider's hp and AC are kind of low for it to be scuttling into melee range. 

By the way, at this point, let us look at what you may get. Take you standard wolf companion. Using your rules and assumptions, a 5th level ranger is going to cast a 1st and 2nd level spell to make sure their companion can attack seperate from them and that their 20 hp, 16 AC wolf has a save DC of 14 Str to avoid being proned. 

Meanwhile, at my table, using the revised ranger the Beastmaster is casting no spells, gets their companion attacking seperately and has a wolf with 22 hp, 16 AC, and a DC 12 save with a potential for any of those being a point or two higher from the ability score improvement. Also, despite the PHB ranger getting two attacks, the Revised Ranger has the Wolf making an attack on it's turn and as a reaction on your turn. Very similiar game state, and they have lost no spell selections or spell slots. 



> 3rd Level Ranger Spells
> Find Greater Companion - 1 Hour Casting time - You call out to the wild to find a new beast companion that can be Large and of a CR equal to 1/4 of your level (rounded down). The beast must be native to the area that you are in and able to reach your location. If you are in your favored terrain, you pick the beast that appears, otherwise the DM chooses from what is appropriate for the area.




At the time you get this, you are looking at a CR 2 creature, and since it is limited to beasts in the native area... most of what you are going to find is actually likely to be CR 1. An improvement over what you have, sure, but this cost you permanently knowing this 3rd level spell instead of something else like Conjure Animals, which can bring a CR 2 creature to the battle that is not native to the area, and can fight in addition to what you are doing and does not replace your current companion. Or, it can create a large crowd of lower CR creatures to provide aid in a variety of other ways. 

Also, I have to wonder, if a DM offered this spell, they are clearly fine with the Ranger getting a CR 2 or higher companion at higher levels, because that is the entire point of that spell... why would they not then rule with the vague language of the PHB rules on replacing your companion that you can bond with a higher CR creature? Then, you get the benefit of this spell, without losing out on other options. And if the DM doesn't want you to have a higher CR companion... they simply won't offer this spell. It seems relatively pointless to me. 



> 4th Level Ranger Spells
> Awakened Beast - 1 Hour Casting Time, Permanent Duration - You forge a permanent telepathic bond with your companion. As long as you are on the same plane of existence, you can communicate telepathically as well as see through each others eyes at will. The beast can also add 6 points to it's ability scores, either all to one or split between several. The awakening lasts until your companion is killed. If later brought back to life, the spell must be cast again.




The additional points are nice, but I note that is the exact same number of points that you would get going with the Revised Ranger up to level 13 when you get this spell. It is also a spell you will only cast once, which again hurts the ranger to take a spell that they can't switch out that they will only use one time. 

And other than the ability points, the only ability this has is the exact same as the level 2 Beast Sense spell, only permanent. Which, that is nice sure, but by this point you've got plenty of other ways to scout, or have been using Beast Sense for the past 10 levels, and it isn't going to actually help you out all that much. 



I know you are offering these as alternatives to the Revised Ranger, and I get that UA stuff tends to be better... but what I mostly see in your spells is an attempt to do the exact same things the Revised Beastmaster does, only do it worse because it costs spells known and spell slots along with concentration slots to maintain. Maybe I'm the wrong guy to review these, but I just don't see why I would ask someone to go this route instead of using the UA. 





Hussar said:


> Why?  Why does it need to see print to matter?  Are you insisting on AL rules at your home table?  If not, then why would it matter in the slightest?




The only reason I would have liked it to see print (and I doubt this is the same reason [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] has) is that I would have liked a more official place to turn to. I have the Revised Ranger in my binder full of optional material and when a player is making their ranger character I'm going to have to stop them from looking at the PHB and dismissing it by letting them know that somewhere in my ratty binder is a better solution. 

A printed book might have gotten tossed into the pile of books people can look at, and then I wouldn't have to direct them, they would see it themselves.  It is a minor annoyance, but it is an annoyance all the same.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 13, 2018)

I just realized in addition to adding new spells to help the beastmaster (though I was wrong earlier in suggesting a cantrip - they get no cantrips), you could also add a Fighting Style. Something like "Companion Fighting: Any time you are fighting the same foe as your animal companion, you can use a bonus action to grant your companion an attack action; when you are adjacent to either your animal companion or a foe when that foe attacks your animal companion, you may use your reaction to cause the foe to strike at you instead, and if the attack hits, you have resistance to the damage from that attack."


----------



## cbwjm (Aug 13, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I just realized in addition to adding new spells to help the beastmaster (though I was wrong earlier in suggesting a cantrip - they get no cantrips), you could also add a Fighting Style. Something like "Companion Fighting: Any time you are fighting the same foe as your animal companion, you can use a bonus action to grant your companion an attack action; when you are adjacent to either your animal companion or a foe when that foe attacks your animal companion, you may use your reaction to cause the foe to strike at you instead, and if the attack hits, you have resistance to the damage from that attack."




Would this be gained when they pick up the beast master subclass? Otherwise, the issue is that they gain their only fighting style at 2nd level before picking up their subclass.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 13, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> Would this be gained when they pick up the beast master subclass? Otherwise, the issue is that they gain their only fighting style at 2nd level before picking up their subclass.




No it's a new fighting style option - it's not a change to the Ranger class in the PHB it's just a new option that could be published in a future book like any other options, like a new spell or feat. Yes, they'd get it before the subclass. If there are issues with the earlier levels, you could just as easily change it from "animal companion" to "allied creature of the beast sub-type".  That would allow some additional flexibility with animals you're helping, animal friends you've purchased or made through a skill check or spell, perhaps even of aid for a Paladin's mount or a Cavaliers, and maybe some familiars?


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 13, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Why?  Why does it need to see print to matter?  Are you insisting on AL rules at your home table?  If not, then why would it matter in the slightest?




If you can't see the difference between fully committed material in hardcopy on one hand and PDF playtest material on the other, I have nothing to add.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 13, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, again, the UA companion does what you want [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION].  It's strong enough not to get killed in combat (and, simply adding 3 death saves to the companion fixes that completely) and deals enough damage that it makes for a decent second attack.  Remember, the UA companion is attacking twice per round, typically - once on its turn and once on the ranger's turn.  That makes a pretty big difference.
> 
> See, I've actually played in groups with the the UA beast master.  If it wasn't the top damage dealer in a given fight, it was probably second best.  It consistently pumped out very comparable damage to any other martial character.
> 
> AFAIC, the class is fixed.  Job done.  I would suggest that instead of theory crafting, actually TRACK the damage done by your characters for a couple of sessions.  I think you'll find that the UA beast master ranger is fine.




I'm inclined to agree. The UA Beastmaster does the job well enough across the board to fix the problems of the PHB companion. A sidebar for the DM going into a bit more detail about the balance of extra actions in combat may still be useful but I don't think it's necessary. 

Depending on the campaign, I may make the requirements for bringing the companion back a bit steeper but that's just a first impression reaction.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 13, 2018)

See, it's only if a rule is printed in a book does a min-max player feel comfortable running that mechanic into the ground.  If its only a UA, they can't fully commit to overusing it because it could get changed on them at any moment.


----------



## Eric V (Aug 13, 2018)

DEFCON 1 said:


> See, it's only if a rule is printed in a book does a min-max player feel comfortable running that mechanic into the ground.  If its only a UA, they can't fully commit to overusing it because it could get changed on them at any moment.




What a douchebag comment to make, I mean, really...


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 13, 2018)

Eric V said:


> What a douchebag comment to make, I mean, really...




Sarcasm meant in good fun, I thought. 

It is too easy to get offended if you take everything seriously, but if it was meant in a mean-spirited manner I would agree with you.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 13, 2018)

Eric V said:


> What a douchebag comment to make, I mean, really...




No, no... douchebag _joke_.  There's a difference.  

And besides... the mix-maxers should be able to handle some good-natured ribbing.  I mean I can tell you right now that if you wish to rag on me for being a story-teller DM, go right ahead.  I can take it.  Heh heh!


----------



## OB1 (Aug 13, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> The spells themselves are pretty much direct fixes to the problems that have been reported about the PHB Beastmaster.
> 
> ...
> 
> I know you are offering these as alternatives to the Revised Ranger, and I get that UA stuff tends to be better... but what I mostly see in your spells is an attempt to do the exact same things the Revised Beastmaster does, only do it worse because it costs spells known and spell slots along with concentration slots to maintain. Maybe I'm the wrong guy to review these, but I just don't see why I would ask someone to go this route instead of using the UA.




And those problems are now considered so minor by WotC that they have abandoned the idea of doing a direct fix to the class.  

I'm looking for a path that allows those who feel that the PHB Beastmaster doesnt' fit their style to up it's power level via the introduction of new spells.  That does come at a cost of other things you could do, but IMO that's a fair trade off.  The UA Beastmaster basically gives you everything you want for free

That said, the spell list I suggested was a first draft, so I've taken a look at your constructive crit and tried to revise accordingly.  My goal here is to have some things that work for both the disposable and constant companion style of play, while allowing the constant companion style to boost the ability to use their companion as a living weapon. Interested in your thoughts on the revisions.

*1st Level Ranger Spells*
Hunting Party - 1 Min, Concentration, Bonus Action, self - When you cast this spell, you gain an additional action that you can use only to command your Beast Companion, additionally, the beast gains Temporary Hit points equal to 5 times your proficiency bonus.  You also gain advantage on attacks against a creature your companion is engaged with.   (Combined the two 1st level spells into a single boost and added a free help action.  This is clearly a more powerful option than Hunters Mark, especially at higher levels)

*2nd Level Ranger Spells*
Revivify Beast - Action, Touch - You touch the body of a beast that has been dead for less than 1 minute and it returns to life with 1 HP. (revised to make clear that this does not work if the body of your companion doesn't exist)

Alter Beast - Action, Touch, 1 Hour - You touch a beast and it's natural weapon damage dice each gain 1 level (d1>d4>d6>d8>d10>d12) and it also gains one of the following benefits, It's natural weapons become + 1 magical weapons, It's AC increases by 2, the DC of any of it's abilities increases by the caster's proficiency bonus.  When you cast this spell at a higher level, the damage dice increase and additional step for each level and you can choose one more optional benefit. (Revised to allow additional damage boost)

*3rd Level Ranger Spells*
Find Greater Companion - 1 Hour Casting time - You call out to the wild to find a new beast companion that can either be Large with a CR equal to 1/4 of your level or Medium with a CR of 1/2 your level (rounded down). The beast must be native to the area that you are in and able to reach your location. If you are in your favored terrain, you pick the beast that appears, otherwise the DM chooses from what is appropriate for the area. (added option to take more powerful Medium creature or less powerful Large creature)

*4th Level Ranger Spells*
Awakened Beast - 1 Hour Casting Time, Permanent Duration - You forge a permanent telepathic bond with your companion. As long as you are on the same plane of existence, you can communicate telepathically as well as see through each others eyes at will. The beast can also add 6 points to it's ability scores, either all to one or split between several.  It also gains your save and skill proficiencies.   The awakening lasts until your companion is killed. If later brought back to life, the spell must be cast again. (Added save and ability proficencies) 

Reincarnate Beast - 1 Hour Casting Time, Permanent - You focus on the spirit of a beast dead for not more than 30 days. The beast is reincarnated, appearing from nearby at the end of the 1 hour casting time.  (No change.  At higher levels, this spell becomes useful as you may not always have the chance to revivify your companion.  If you want to make sure you can bring your companion back, you choose this)

*5th Level Ranger Spells*
Heroic Beast - Action, Touch, 10 Minutes - You gain the benefits of both the Command Beast (without concentration) and Alter Beast (as if cast at 4th level) spells, your beast's speed is doubled and it adds your proficiency bonus to all saves. (reworked this completely, think it is comparable to Swift Quiver or Combat Barrage.  Note also that you can stack this with Hunters Mark which at this level would effect both you and your companion for even more damage boosting)

Looking forward to more feedback on these!


----------



## Hussar (Aug 14, 2018)

Eric V said:


> What a douchebag comment to make, I mean, really...




I dunno, seems to be hitting the nail on the head.  Once the material gets put into an "official" book, the min-maxxer can point to it and whine and complain that he or she bought the book, so, the DM should let him or her play it.

If it's free, online, then the DM can just ignore it more easily if the DM doesn't feel like there needs to be a fix.

I look at it like this:  The problem was identified and fixed.  People will swear by Crawford Tweets when discussing rules.  This is no different.  It's put out by WotC, it's easily available and it WORKS.  Job done.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 14, 2018)

OB1 said:


> And those problems are now considered so minor by WotC that they have abandoned the idea of doing a direct fix to the class.
> 
> I'm looking for a path that allows those who feel that the PHB Beastmaster doesnt' fit their style to up it's power level via the introduction of new spells.  That does come at a cost of other things you could do, but IMO that's a fair trade off.  The UA Beastmaster basically gives you everything you want for free




And getting fixes that allow the class to fit players preferred playstyle for free is bad? 

I don't care if WoTC thinks the problems are minor, there are lots of things they don't feel the need to address that I feel need attention, but "charging" players for trying to make their concept work is kind of a ridiculous stance to start with, IMO.




OB1 said:


> That said, the spell list I suggested was a first draft, so I've taken a look at your constructive crit and tried to revise accordingly.  My goal here is to have some things that work for both the disposable and constant companion style of play, while allowing the constant companion style to boost the ability to use their companion as a living weapon. Interested in your thoughts on the revisions.




Sure, though of course, dude on internet opinion may not be worth a lot. 



> *1st Level Ranger Spells*
> Hunting Party - 1 Min, Concentration, Bonus Action, self - When you cast this spell, you gain an additional action that you can use only to command your Beast Companion, additionally, the beast gains Temporary Hit points equal to 5 times your proficiency bonus.  You also gain advantage on attacks against a creature your companion is engaged with.   (Combined the two 1st level spells into a single boost and added a free help action.  This is clearly a more powerful option than Hunters Mark, especially at higher levels)




What do we mean by "engaged with" becomes a very important question. Also, if flanking rules and melee ranger are involved, the math changes. The reason "Engaged with" becomes important is because certain animals, like the Owl or Flying Serpent, get fly-by attacks. They have attacked and "engaged" the enemy, but do not remain adjacent. But, if Adjacent is our only concern, then running up and dodging is also considered "engaged" which may or may not fit what you are going with. 

I still don't like the idea of "here is a spell that lets you do what you should already be able to do" but adding in 10 temp hp and advantage on ranged attacks is pretty powerful. How powerful can be debated, since a spell like Faerie Fire will also give advantage, on multiple targets, but I could see this not feeling like being insulting as a must grab option. 

It is a must grab option for a beast master who wants to actually utilize their beast in combat, and must be cast every combat, and may be lost due to concentration, but at least it gives enough benefits to make it seem like you had a choice to begin with. 




> *2nd Level Ranger Spells*
> Revivify Beast - Action, Touch - You touch the body of a beast that has been dead for less than 1 minute and it returns to life with 1 HP. (revised to make clear that this does not work if the body of your companion doesn't exist)
> 
> 4th level
> Reincarnate Beast - 1 Hour Casting Time, Permanent - You focus on the spirit of a beast dead for not more than 30 days. The beast is reincarnated, appearing from nearby at the end of the 1 hour casting time.  (No change.  At higher levels, this spell becomes useful as you may not always have the chance to revivify your companion.  If you want to make sure you can bring your companion back, you choose this)





Since you didn't change them my opinion of them doesn't change. And, while you say you might not always get a chance to revivify your companion, you very often will get a chance. Most combatant's don't drop til mid or late combat, giving you 10 rounds, and, unless your GM is really hard out to measure the seconds, once the combat ends and you say "I revive my companion" you've generally met the timeline. 

Additionally, the person who cares enough about their beast to take this spell will care enough to take measures to ensure they survive, such as curing them when they drop or stabilizing them. In addition to all of that, three death saves need to be failed, which is just hard enough to push this over the edge. 

Now, Raise Dead makes sense for the Cleric, because the Cleric will prepare Raise Dead the next day to cast it, and then not prepare it the following day when it isn't needed, but Rangers learn spells permanently, and they have only 11 spells known. That is fewer than the Eldritch Knight or the Arcane Trickster, and you aren't really going to expect those classes to take a spell like that Reincarnate Beast spell that they may use once a campaign and took as a precaution. It just doesn't work with the way the RAW class is designed.  



> 2nd Level
> Alter Beast - Action, Touch, 1 Hour - You touch a beast and it's natural weapon damage dice each gain 1 level (d1>d4>d6>d8>d10>d12) and it also gains one of the following benefits, It's natural weapons become + 1 magical weapons, It's AC increases by 2, the DC of any of it's abilities increases by the caster's proficiency bonus.  When you cast this spell at a higher level, the damage dice increase and additional step for each level and you can choose one more optional benefit. (Revised to allow additional damage boost)




That damage scaling can be either pretty good or really meh. For example, the d1 represents creatures who deal only a single point of damage like the hawk, but if you break down the likely math the Hawk is really dealing 1d4-3, which will just upgrade to a 1d6-3... which is still very likely to be 1 damage, since we have a minimum of 1. 

Alternatively, It can raise a wolf from 2d4 to 2d6, which is a pretty massive boost on average damage. Also, using some of your other spells can lead to other beasts being effected, like the rhino which will go from 2d8 to 2d10 (maybe 4d10 depending on reading of Charge). 

So, near useless for some beasts, decently powerful for others, and now the +1 magic bonus is pretty much worthless unless you are fighting something immune to non-magic damage, because the increased dice already get you a +1 or +2 to damage on average and you are better off going for the AC or DC boost. 



> *3rd Level Ranger Spells*
> Find Greater Companion - 1 Hour Casting time - You call out to the wild to find a new beast companion that can either be Large with a CR equal to 1/4 of your level or Medium with a CR of 1/2 your level (rounded down). The beast must be native to the area that you are in and able to reach your location. If you are in your favored terrain, you pick the beast that appears, otherwise the DM chooses from what is appropriate for the area. (added option to take more powerful Medium creature or less powerful Large creature)




You changed absolutely nothing as far as I can tell, since I can't find a medium beast whose CR is higher than 1. Even pulled out Volo's and checked the Dinosaurs. So, unless there is something highly specific I missed, changing medium to 1/2 your level was a pointless choice. 

Also, all of my criticism of this spell from the first go around still applies. A DM who allows this spell will probably allow the exact same thing to happen without the spell, making it a moot point and a waste to take. 



> *4th Level Ranger Spells*
> Awakened Beast - 1 Hour Casting Time, Permanent Duration - You forge a permanent telepathic bond with your companion. As long as you are on the same plane of existence, you can communicate telepathically as well as see through each others eyes at will. The beast can also add 6 points to it's ability scores, either all to one or split between several.  It also gains your save and skill proficiencies.   The awakening lasts until your companion is killed. If later brought back to life, the spell must be cast again. (Added save and ability proficencies)




Gaining the proficiencies is nice, Rangers get Dex and Str which may end up being useful. A lot of your skill proficiences are likely wasted on them, such as anything intelligence based since a player will likely not raise a beasts intelligence as their only usage for those 6 points. 

Again, it is something I may consider if I was forced to play a PHB Beastmaster, but most of it is actually not useful for the player compared to other spells they could take, and once more, out of 11 spells you are allowed over 20 levels, it becomes hard to justify taking a spell you will only use once. As an Alternative route compared to the Revised Ranger, I just don't see it being worth it. 




> *5th Level Ranger Spells*
> Heroic Beast - Action, Touch, 10 Minutes - You gain the benefits of both the Command Beast (without concentration) and Alter Beast (as if cast at 4th level) spells, your beast's speed is doubled and it adds your proficiency bonus to all saves. (reworked this completely, think it is comparable to Swift Quiver or Combat Barrage.  Note also that you can stack this with Hunters Mark which at this level would effect both you and your companion for even more damage boosting)
> 
> Looking forward to more feedback on these!




Command Beast doesn't exist, so I assume you mean Hunting Party. The phrasing is definitely more succinct, but it goes back to ranger casting limitations a little bit. You just made a high level spell that invalidates two other spells. Now, I did double check, and I was wrong, Ranger's can forget a spell they learned and learn a different spell, so this is somewhat less of a problem, but it just feels wonky as a design choice. 

Other than that... it is essentially the same spell as it was last time, just worded and not taking a concentration slot. 



And, I'm honestly starting to wonder what the beast master does when they run out of spell slots to support these spells. Since they provide temporary access to being a Beast Master.... a ranger up until 17th level when they can gain Heroic Beast has 4 combats from 5th level on where they can act in tandem with their companion, assuming the Ranger never loses concentration on their spell. Then, they start cannibalizing higher level slots, and this assumes the Ranger has cast no other 1st level spells at all. 

It is similiar to the paladin smite problem, but where the smite is additional gravy damage, that Hunting Party spell simply brings the beast master up to where they should be anyways. 


And, I'm not entirely sure why I would choose to take these spells and the PHB Beastmaster, when I could just as easily play the Revised Ranger. Many of the "benefits" you are giving out are the exact same benefits the Revised Ranger gives the Beastmaster, so since both are optional content, why would I choose this method which eats up spells known and spell slots over my other option which does not?


----------



## OB1 (Aug 14, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> And getting fixes that allow the class to fit players preferred playstyle for free is bad?
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




It’s not bad that it’s free, it’s just free. What the UA Ranger is surely would have been toned down quite a bit were it to be made official. I’m arguing that it’s acceptable that the level of power gained for the beast companion should come with a price elsewhere. 

But if your DM allows it, great!  I would not allow it at my table. I’m a DM who allows literally everything officially printed by WotC but very little UA material. 

So, since a Revised Ranger is dead, I’m curious as to how else to accomplish the goals of that style of play, and new spells seems the best way, as those spells could be added to a future supplement without needing to revise anything. 

Of course someone who can take the UA Ranger wouldn’t choose this instead, but the question is if you couldn’t take the UA Ranger would you feel this matches your concept. 

If I’m hearing you right, it’s important that your companion be an important part of each battle, which these spells don’t quite address. The solution here might be making Hunting Party an 8 hour spell (like mage armor) getting rid of concentration and the advantage mechanic. Maybe add that the temp hit points can be renewed by the ranger spending five minutes petting her companion. 

And the fifth level spell still needs work. I think it should be something that feels epic. That your companion has become an unstoppable force of nature. 

And it’s fine that you wouldn’t personally take Reincarnate. I still believe it’s an important option to have. Heck, some styles of play wouldn’t bother with revivify, choosing to just recruit a new beast if their current one dies. 

That’s also important for awakened beast and find greater beast. As a player might choose to bond with different animals depending on their current needs.  Otherwise you can learn and retrain next level. 

Good note on the medium CR issue.  Maybe best just to lock it at a specific CR and Large rather than have it in a sliding scale.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 14, 2018)

OB1 said:


> It’s not bad that it’s free, it’s just free. What the UA Ranger is surely would have been toned down quite a bit were it to be made official. I’m arguing that it’s acceptable that the level of power gained for the beast companion should come with a price elsewhere.
> 
> But if your DM allows it, great!  I would not allow it at my table. I’m a DM who allows literally everything officially printed by WotC but very little UA material.
> 
> ...




The Revised Ranger is just as alive at my table as it was two months ago. Just because they are saying they aren't going to print it in a book doesn't mean it is dead. 

And, I'm curious why you feel it is overpowered, and let me be more specific in that question, what in the Revised Beastmaster rules is overpowered enough that you can't port them into the PHB Ranger chasis? 

I ran for a Revised Beastmaster for two years, the only minor complaint I might have had as a GM was that the wolf had a lot of Hp... but I think that came about after I buffed it signifigantly when the Tiefling Ranger ended up making a deal that slotted her into the Hierarchy of Hell and got a massive boost herself. 

And even after I ended up doing what I could to represent her as an Avatar of an Archdevil, I still didn't feel like she was more powerful than the other members of the party, specifically the Swashbuckler Rogue Changeling who... he had some magic items but nothing crazy that I can remember until the very end when he got the legendary sword. 

I'll give people that multi-classing with the Revised Ranger is a bit rough, and I agree that WoTC likely would have neutered it before print, just like they did with many of the Subclasses in Xanathar's guide, but my own experiences and the examples of play I've seen and heard about don't show that the Revised Ranger actually needs to be toned down all that much. 

And these spells could be printed without rewriting the PHB ranger, but if they ever were, it would be a huge flag to the community indicating that the Beastmaster needs fixed, because these spells address the concerns of the Beastmaster almost one for one in terms of what they are trying to do. And, if WoTC indicates the ranger needs fixed, inevitably, people are going to ask why they didn't just go ahead with the Revised Ranger instead.




OB1 said:


> If I’m hearing you right, it’s important that your companion be an important part of each battle, which these spells don’t quite address. The solution here might be making Hunting Party an 8 hour spell (like mage armor) getting rid of concentration and the advantage mechanic. Maybe add that the temp hit points can be renewed by the ranger spending five minutes petting her companion.
> 
> Good note on the medium CR issue.  Maybe best just to lock it at a specific CR and Large rather than have it in a sliding scale.




I'm not disagreeing (and yes, I feel like if you choose to be a "beast master" your companion should be useful quite often, and combat is a large portion of the game so being viable in combat is almost a prereq for it), but let us look at where those changes to Hunting Party lead us. 

Essentially, the companion is allowed to act independently, as long as the Beast Master ranger devotes one spell slot and one spell known to that task every long rest. Is it fair to tell a player, "for choosing this sub-class, subtract one 1st level spell slot from your list and you will know one less spell than you would otherwise know" because this is essentially the cost you are forcing onto the concept to make it work as people want it to. 

You don't want to give people things for free, but subclasses are already built in with choice. The price of choosing a Beastmaster is that you are not some other sort of ranger. You lose out on any other set of abilities you could have. Therefore, I don't think it is really fair to further penalize a character's resources, just because the designers decided not to go through with the fix they had been working on for the design problems they created. 

Personally, I think it is more fruitful to simply port over the Revised Beastmaster rules, or rewrite the PHB Beastmaster rules instead of adding spells that create the fixes that are requested. Because spells should be a bonus, "You get to do this cool thing you couldn't do before" they should not be "You should be able to do this thing, but you can't so we're charging you a spell to do it anyways."


----------



## OB1 (Aug 14, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> You don't want to give people things for free, but subclasses are already built in with choice. The price of choosing a Beastmaster is that you are not some other sort of ranger. You lose out on any other set of abilities you could have. Therefore, I don't think it is really fair to further penalize a character's resources, just because the designers decided not to go through with the fix they had been working on for the design problems they created.
> 
> Personally, I think it is more fruitful to simply port over the Revised Beastmaster rules, or rewrite the PHB Beastmaster rules instead of adding spells that create the fixes that are requested. Because spells should be a bonus, "You get to do this cool thing you couldn't do before" they should not be "You should be able to do this thing, but you can't so we're charging you a spell to do it anyways."




Yes, but they aren't going to port over the Revised Beastmaster rules, or rewrite the PHB Beastmaster rules, because the data they've collected is telling them that most players don't see the PHB BeastMaster as having major problems.  It's fine as it is written.  What you want is a bonus.  And that bonus, IMO, is fine to have a cost with it.

I do think you are right that the opportunity cost for Ranger spell selection is very high, and that these spells need to reflect that.

At any rate, here are my latest set of revisions to the spells.   Big changes to Hunting Party, Revivify Beast, Find Greater Companion and replaced Heroic Beast with Beast Mode.  Beast Mode is probably way OP, but then again Conjure Volley has the ability to take out 100 Orcs, so that's what I'm comparing it against.


*1st Level Ranger Spells*
Hunting Party - 8 Hours, Bonus Action, self - When you cast this spell, you gain an additional action that you can use only to command your Beast Companion, additionally, the beast gains Temporary Hit points equal to 5 times your proficiency bonus, these temporary hit points can be restored for the duration of the spell by petting the beast for 5 minutes.  Finally, when your companion attacks a creature effected by your Hunter's Mark, it also gains the 1d6 damage on each attack against it.

*2nd Level Ranger Spells*
Revivify Beast - Action, Touch - You touch the body of a beast that has been dead for less than 1 minute and it returns to life with 1 HP. (revised to make clear that this does not work if the body of your companion doesn't exist)

Alter Beast - Action, Touch, 1 Hour - You touch a beast and it grows 1 size category, adds 1d4 damage to each of it's attacks and doubles it's speed.  It's attacks are also now considered magical.

*3rd Level Ranger Spells*
Find Greater Companion - 1 Hour Casting time - You call out to the wild to find a new beast companion that be Large with a CR of up to 3. The beast must be native to the area that you are in and able to reach your location. If you are in your favored terrain, you pick the beast that appears, otherwise the DM chooses from what is appropriate for the area.

*4th Level Ranger Spells*
Awakened Beast - 1 Hour Casting Time, Permanent Duration - You forge a permanent telepathic bond with your companion. As long as you are on the same plane of existence, you can communicate telepathically as well as see through each others eyes at will. The beast can also add 6 points to it's ability scores, either all to one or split between several. It also gains your save and skill proficiencies and gains the evasion ability. The awakening lasts until your companion is killed. If later brought back to life, the spell must be cast again.

Reincarnate Beast - 1 Hour Casting Time, Permanent - You focus on the spirit of a beast dead for not more than 30 days. The beast is reincarnated, appearing from nearby at the end of the 1 hour casting time. (No change. At higher levels, this spell becomes useful as you may not always have the chance to revivify your companion. If you want to make sure you can bring your companion back, you choose this)

*5th Level Ranger Spells*
Beast Mode - 1 Action, 1 minute, concentration - Your companion goes into a state of primal fury and gains 50 temporary hit points.  For the duration of the spell, your beast attacks 3 times when in takes the attack action (or 2 multi-attacks), has advantage on those attacks, does an additional 10 damage on each hit, and can knock prone or shove an enemy back 10' on each successful hit with a DC equal to your spell save DC.  Finally, it's speed is doubled and opportunity attacks have disadvantage against it.  When the spell ends a wave of lethargy sweeps over your companion, causing it to lose it's next turn.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 14, 2018)

Eric V said:


> What a douchebag comment to make, I mean, really...



Plenty of those around here, and next to no moderation to stop them.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 14, 2018)

Deleted.


----------



## Eric V (Aug 14, 2018)

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I agreed with you earlier that the class works.  I use it myself.

I am concerned, however, that it might be a bit over-the-top in some of its abilities, and wanted the professionals (with more expertise in this area than me) to give it another pass, like it was originally intended.

That desire is _not _coming from a min-maxing place, and it's boorish to assume that it does.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Aug 14, 2018)

Eric V said:


> [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I agreed with you earlier that the class works.  I use it myself.
> 
> I am concerned, however, that it might be a bit over-the-top in some of its abilities, and wanted the professionals (with more expertise in this area than me) to give it another pass, like it was originally intended.
> 
> That desire is _not _coming from a min-maxing place, and it's boorish to assume that it does.




I feel the same way. If the PHB Ranger was too weak, the RR swung the pendulum too far in the other direction.

I would have loved to see a middle of the road version.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 14, 2018)

OB1 said:


> Yes, but they aren't going to port over the Revised Beastmaster rules, or rewrite the PHB Beastmaster rules, because the data they've collected is telling them that most players don't see the PHB BeastMaster as having major problems.  It's fine as it is written.  What you want is a bonus.  And that bonus, IMO, is fine to have a cost with it.




But your spells come with that same problem. WoTC isn't going to publish them because they've decided the Ranger doesn't need a fix (I really hope their process weeded out players who were playing the Hunter and the Revised Ranger, because if they decided they didn't need a fix because everyone was playing the Revised Ranger, that'd be kind of stupid) and your spells are straight up a fix to the Beastmaster subclass. 



And I am still rather curious, what you personally find in the Revised Beastmaster Rules to be too powerful that you will not allow it at your table? I can imagine some answers to why you wouldn't want the Revised Base Class, but you could rather easily just move the Beastmaster rules in unless there is a particular point you find too powerful. Consider it a bit of Quid Pro Quo, as I've been going over your spells and I'm honestly interested in finding ways to tighten up the Revised Ranger since that is what I shall be using going forward. 




> *2nd Level Ranger Spells*
> Revivify Beast - Action, Touch - You touch the body of a beast that has been dead for less than 1 minute and it returns to life with 1 HP. (revised to make clear that this does not work if the body of your companion doesn't exist)
> 
> 4th level
> Reincarnate Beast - 1 Hour Casting Time, Permanent - You focus on the spirit of a beast dead for not more than 30 days. The beast is reincarnated, appearing from nearby at the end of the 1 hour casting time. (No change. At higher levels, this spell becomes useful as you may not always have the chance to revivify your companion. If you want to make sure you can bring your companion back, you choose this)




No changes, so need to discuss them





OB1 said:


> *1st Level Ranger Spells*
> Hunting Party - 8 Hours, Bonus Action, self - When you cast this spell, you gain an additional action that you can use only to command your Beast Companion, additionally, the beast gains Temporary Hit points equal to 5 times your proficiency bonus, these temporary hit points can be restored for the duration of the spell by petting the beast for 5 minutes.  Finally, when your companion attacks a creature effected by your Hunter's Mark, it also gains the 1d6 damage on each attack against it.




I'd change "petting" to "caring for", because I just feel like that is more accurate and less chance of someone feeling condescended to (People can be finicky)

But yeah, those changes make this a relatively potent spell, renewable Temp HP (even a small amount) is pretty powerful and benefitting from Hunter's Mark feel right for a Ranger and their soul-bound companion. 




> 2nd Level
> Alter Beast - Action, Touch, 1 Hour - You touch a beast and it grows 1 size category, adds 1d4 damage to each of it's attacks and doubles it's speed.  It's attacks are also now considered magical.




Some pretty hefty changes here. Not sure why we added the growth to the spell, but I'm torn between wondering why I would bother (being large for an hour might cut into stealth opportunities) and whether it would stack with Enlarge being cast by a friendly wizard (meet Fido, Huge Wolf). Other than that, damage, speed and making things magic are always relatively useful things to put out. 




> *3rd Level Ranger Spells*
> Find Greater Companion - 1 Hour Casting time - You call out to the wild to find a new beast companion that be Large with a CR of up to 3. The beast must be native to the area that you are in and able to reach your location. If you are in your favored terrain, you pick the beast that appears, otherwise the DM chooses from what is appropriate for the area.




Static CR does mean that this is less confusing, majority of my comments from the first draft still apply. Though, at least now I'm aware a Ranger can retrain this spell after they use it to ditch their former companion for a newer prettier model. 




> *4th Level Ranger Spells*
> Awakened Beast - 1 Hour Casting Time, Permanent Duration - You forge a permanent telepathic bond with your companion. As long as you are on the same plane of existence, you can communicate telepathically as well as see through each others eyes at will. The beast can also add 6 points to it's ability scores, either all to one or split between several. It also gains your save and skill proficiencies and gains the evasion ability. The awakening lasts until your companion is killed. If later brought back to life, the spell must be cast again.




I wonder if you removed the "add your proficiency to the beasts saves" from Alter Beast because you added Evasion here. Permanently gaining evasion and Dex Save Prof is pretty powerful. I do find it odd though. Here is a spell that a Ranger will learn, cast after learning it, then forget next level and never cast again (unless the companion dies which the Ranger will obviously try and prevent). 

I can see just about any Beastmaster doing it, because there are so few downsides, but it almost feels tax like, because just about every 13th to 14th level Ranger is going to do the exact same thing. 



> *5th Level Ranger Spells*
> Beast Mode - 1 Action, 1 minute, concentration - Your companion goes into a state of primal fury and gains 50 temporary hit points.  For the duration of the spell, your beast attacks 3 times when in takes the attack action (or 2 multi-attacks), has advantage on those attacks, does an additional 10 damage on each hit, and can knock prone or shove an enemy back 10' on each successful hit with a DC equal to your spell save DC.  Finally, it's speed is doubled and opportunity attacks have disadvantage against it.  When the spell ends a wave of lethargy sweeps over your companion, causing it to lose it's next turn.




That two multi-attack thing makes me want to see if I can break this. 

Only CR 3 beast is the Giant Scorpion. Stacking Awaken, Hunting Party, and Alter before we cast beast mode. We get this

Ranger Companion Giant Scorpion, Huge Beast

HP: 91+50tmp (max instead of 4xlv, and added Con)   AC: 21    Spd 160 ft
Dex Save of +7 with evasion, Strength save of +12

Multi attack with 3 strikes, twice per round (Maxed Strength) 

Claw x2  +13  1d8+1d4+21  and Grapple vs DC 15
Sting +13  1d10+1d4+21 DC 13 Con save vs 4d10 poison or half

So, six attacks all with advantage giving us 2d10+4d8+6d4+126, grapple, prone, and two saves versus 4d10 or half

Also, with opportunity attacks at Disadvantage, auto grappling by a huge creature, and a speed of 160 ft, the Scorpion could clearly run in, beat something senseless, and if it isn't dead drag it back to the party, breaking the enemy formation. 

I find it a cool thing, but I wouldn't ever want a player to pull that off on multiple turns. That monster might be able to cause serious damage to a mid-level party. Spell is definitely worthwhile if you have a beast powerful enough to make the combat buffs better.


----------



## Staffan (Aug 14, 2018)

BookBarbarian said:


> I feel the same way. If the PHB Ranger was too weak, the RR swung the pendulum too far in the other direction.
> 
> I would have loved to see a middle of the road version.




I believe that's generally their attitude when playtesting stuff - err on the side of a high power level in order to have the playtesting be about the concepts offered rather than be tainted by dissatisfaction with weak abilities. In other words, they're more interested in "Is a combat-relevant Favored Enemy a good idea?" rather than "Is +2 damage the appropriate bonus for a Favored Enemy?"


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 15, 2018)

Not rocking the boat is the only thing they're interested in lately


----------



## dave2008 (Aug 15, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Not rocking the boat is the only thing they're interested in lately




I bet they are still interested in making money


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 15, 2018)

dave2008 said:


> I bet they are still interested in making money



I'm not satisfied by that. And I find the continued attempts to define good rules as profitable rules to be tiresome to the bone.

Yes, 5E is successful. Does that mean it is perfect and that we should not keep asking for improvements and expansions?

Don't be absurd.

Back on topic: JCs new take is a slap in the face and we can only hope he is replaced. Our needs are not met by a complacent publisher that does nothing for risk of upsetting somebody.


----------



## dave2008 (Aug 15, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> I'm not satisfied by that. And I find the continued attempts to define good rules as profitable rules to be tiresome to the bone.




I never did that, but maybe you are not claiming I did.  That being said, I am satisfied.  I don't want anything more from WotC. I prefer to make the rest myself, to fit my personal wants and desires.



CapnZapp said:


> Yes, 5E is successful. Does that mean it is perfect and that we should not keep asking for improvements and expansions?




No, but I don't expect them to listen until it has a dip in success.  But keep trying - you never know! 




CapnZapp said:


> Don't be absurd.



Not sure who this comment as directed at, but I was just being cheeky, not trying to set you off!  I just got up this morning and noticed you were the last poster on several threads.  I often check out your comments because I think they can be interesting and insightful.  Your post just elicited a bit of jest, sorry to wade into an obviously heated discussion!


----------



## OB1 (Aug 15, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> But your spells come with that same problem. WoTC isn't going to publish them because they've decided the Ranger doesn't need a fix (I really hope their process weeded out players who were playing the Hunter and the Revised Ranger, because if they decided they didn't need a fix because everyone was playing the Revised Ranger, that'd be kind of stupid) and your spells are straight up a fix to the Beastmaster subclass.




Yes, but adding spells is an established practice in 5e, where revising a class isn't.  And, as you've pointed out, there is opportunity cost with it.  You want a powerful companion?  You have to pay for it with your limited selection of known spells and spell slots.



Chaosmancer said:


> And I am still rather curious, what you personally find in the Revised Beastmaster Rules to be too powerful that you will not allow it at your table? I can imagine some answers to why you wouldn't want the Revised Base Class, but you could rather easily just move the Beastmaster rules in unless there is a particular point you find too powerful. Consider it a bit of Quid Pro Quo, as I've been going over your spells and I'm honestly interested in finding ways to tighten up the Revised Ranger since that is what I shall be using going forward.




First off, let me say that I don't think the UA Ranger is game breaking, I'm sure it works fine at most tables.  My concern with allowing it (along with most UA material) is that it is unfair to the choices and compromises players have to make with published material, which always feels brutal.  UA material always feels easy when choosing it.

It's been a long time since I looked over the individual features of the class, but I remember thinking that it would be better balanced if it had spell casting taken from it, or given a 1/3 caster spell progression.  I'm looking for my pdf of the UA so that I can go over it again and answer you more directly.  

Again though, my main reason for looking at spell solutions is that WotC has nixed the idea of doing a revised ranger, leaving new spells or a new subclass as the options for adding that style to the game.  Who knows, perhaps like the Hexblade subclass for Warlocks, there is a way with the Ranger to subclass in a companion that is meant to be more involved in combat.  Or maybe a combination of subclass and new spells.  




Chaosmancer said:


> I'd change "petting" to "caring for", because I just feel like that is more accurate and less chance of someone feeling condescended to (People can be finicky)




Good idea, I'll change it.



Chaosmancer said:


> Some pretty hefty changes here. Not sure why we added the growth to the spell, but I'm torn between wondering why I would bother (being large for an hour might cut into stealth opportunities) and whether it would stack with Enlarge being cast by a friendly wizard (meet Fido, Huge Wolf). Other than that, damage, speed and making things magic are always relatively useful things to put out.




I almost made the enlarge portion optional, but decided that I liked the idea that to get the benefits you also get something that may or may not be beneficial, depending on the circumstance.  But I should make it incompatible with Enlarge.



Chaosmancer said:


> I wonder if you removed the "add your proficiency to the beasts saves" from Alter Beast because you added Evasion here. Permanently gaining evasion and Dex Save Prof is pretty powerful. I do find it odd though. Here is a spell that a Ranger will learn, cast after learning it, then forget next level and never cast again (unless the companion dies which the Ranger will obviously try and prevent).
> 
> I can see just about any Beastmaster doing it, because there are so few downsides, but it almost feels tax like, because just about every 13th to 14th level Ranger is going to do the exact same thing.




Thought about making this a 1 hour or 8 hour limit, but with the ABI increases that would be a lot of book keeping.  Instead of the saves, I'm now leaning towards being able to choose either Evasion or Stone Skin.

As for the Tax, sure, a lot of Rangers will use once and then discard next level, but I can also see a Ranger who likes to constantly change her animal companion depending on the need of the day keeping this spell to use when she switches out the companion.  You might want a wolf spider in the underdark, a jaguar in the forest and a hawk on a wide open plain.  



Chaosmancer said:


> I find it a cool thing, but I wouldn't ever want a player to pull that off on multiple turns. That monster might be able to cause serious damage to a mid-level party. Spell is definitely worthwhile if you have a beast powerful enough to make the combat buffs better.




Yeah, I really wanted the Beast Master's 5th level spell to feel like a beast.  I'm sure this would be way too powerful a 5th level spell for WotC were it to be published, but not sure what I want to tone down.  Actually, that's probably true of most of these spells.  Like UA material, it's all overpowered from what would likely be published, but I think it's good to start big and then whittle down.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 15, 2018)

OB1 said:


> Yes, but adding spells is an established practice in 5e, where revising a class isn't.  And, as you've pointed out, there is opportunity cost with it.  You want a powerful companion?  You have to pay for it with your limited selection of known spells and spell slots.
> 
> 
> 
> First off, let me say that I don't think the UA Ranger is game breaking, I'm sure it works fine at most tables.  My concern with allowing it (along with most UA material) *is that it is unfair to the choices and compromises players have to make with published material, which always feels brutal*.  UA material always feels easy when choosing it.





I think here is a rather large difference in our philosophies and outlooks on the game. First, while I enjoy players making choices, I've never enjoyed them making "brutal choices" it is part of my beef with Ranger and Sorcerer spellcasting. But bigger than that, I wonder what sort of brutal compromises you see clerics, fighters and rogues making when they choose their subclass. 

I mean, most Cleric subclasses are nearly identical in set up and potential power, and I don't see anything "brutal" about choosing Life over Forge or vice versa. I'd never describe a Fighter choosing to play a Battlemaster, or a rogue with any of their subclasses. And after they choose their subclass, they can generally do what the subclass advertises. Very few don't have that, the Beastmaster being one while the Four Element Monk is another. But I don't see that as a good thing in the class design, because that constrained feeling of those tough choices don't lend themselves to actually enjoying the game.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 15, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Back on topic: JCs new take is a slap in the face and we can only hope he is replaced. Our needs are not met by a complacent publisher that does nothing for risk of upsetting somebody.




Ask 2010 WotC, reeling from 4e's low sales, how risking upsetting your fanbase looks.

Better yet, go in the PF2e playtest boards and ask Paizo how is it working for them.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 15, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> I'm not satisfied by that. And I find the continued attempts to define good rules as profitable rules to be tiresome to the bone.
> 
> Yes, 5E is successful. Does that mean it is perfect and that we should not keep asking for improvements and expansions?
> 
> ...




I feel like I should be Zapp's PR agent. We are usually on the same page, but perhaps CZ comes on a bit strong. 

I agree with you here Zapp, although I don't think JC needs to be replaced. I certainly took exception with how he handled the ranger question. I just posted in the "is character advancement dull" thread that his response was very contrary to the way WotC has handle material up to this point. They have asked for feedback every step of the way in 5E. 

The response here was a bit condescending and akin to telling the players that were interested in the revision that they are "wrong". He could have easily said "we understand the concerns, and we will continue to listen to feedback, but based on the that feedback, it's currently not one of our top priorities," or something like that. It could have been handled in so many better ways. Just tow the company line: "We take your feedback very seriously and will do continue to do so. Perhaps we will have the bandwidth to continue the ranger revision in the future." Blah, blah, blah.

Instead he sounded like he was annoyed by the question. Like "how dare you question the classes in the PHB!" If that's the case, then he certainly shouldn't be interacting directly with the players.


----------



## OB1 (Aug 15, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> I think here is a rather large difference in our philosophies and outlooks on the game. First, while I enjoy players making choices, I've never enjoyed them making "brutal choices" it is part of my beef with Ranger and Sorcerer spellcasting.




Well, brutal may have been a strong word. But I do feel that overall classes and subclasses are built in a way that always leaves you wondering what could have been had you taken the other choice.  It always feels tough to me, with every class I’ve taken, because choosing one thing means not getting other cool things. 

As for Beastmaster, I see it doing exactly what is advertised. Instead of three small combat boosts over your career like a Hunter, you get an animal companion that has a great deal of out of combat utility, and at higher levels can provide some decent combat assistance. 

IMO, a well played Beast Master is superior to a Hunter, as you should be using it to set up ambushes or navigating around combats in enemy territory. 

It’s only when you start comparing it against other interpretations of the class that it appears to need a “fix”. With the influx of new players D&D has seen over the last few years, more and more of the player base doesn’t have that bias. In fact, many more will have experienced the class through listening to Critical Role than by other versions. 

Thus why WotC is no longer interested in the extreme action of revising the class. Just as XGTE though, there is room to allow more options for play styles through new spells and subclasses.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 15, 2018)

OB1 said:


> As for Beastmaster, I see it doing exactly what is advertised. Instead of three small combat boosts over your career like a Hunter, you get an animal companion that has a great deal of out of combat utility, and at higher levels can provide some decent combat assistance.
> 
> IMO, a well played Beast Master is superior to a Hunter, as you should be using it to set up ambushes or navigating around combats in enemy territory.
> 
> It’s only when you start comparing it against other interpretations of the class that it appears to need a “fix”. .




But the vast majority of that out of combat utility can be easily copied, either by another party member such as the wizard, a Ranger who takes ritual caster for Find Familiar, or even by the Ranger choosing speak with animals and making a series of Animal Handling checks. 

What theoretically can't be copied are the beastmaster specific abilities, which are all combat related. I won't deny the out of combat utility of having a pet hawk to fly and scout, or a rat to sneak into enemy bases, but you don't need to be a beastmaster to do those things, and there are many far better routes to get to that point.


----------



## OB1 (Aug 15, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> But the vast majority of that out of combat utility can be easily copied, either by another party member such as the wizard, a Ranger who takes ritual caster for Find Familiar, or even by the Ranger choosing speak with animals and making a series of Animal Handling checks.
> 
> What theoretically can't be copied are the beastmaster specific abilities, which are all combat related. I won't deny the out of combat utility of having a pet hawk to fly and scout, or a rat to sneak into enemy bases, but you don't need to be a beastmaster to do those things, and there are many far better routes to get to that point.




But you also can’t deny that the Beastmaster companion, with its bonus to abilities based on Prof, does those things better than a familiar or using animal handling checks, while also being of value in combat. 

I know it’s not at the value you would like, but it is comparable to the Hunter ranger options.  

But it’s not another PC and IMO shouldn’t be, at least not without expending resources that could be used to up combat power in other ways.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 15, 2018)

OB1 said:


> But you also can’t deny that the Beastmaster companion, with its bonus to abilities based on Prof, does those things better than a familiar



On the contrary, being able to see through a familiar's eyes (and thus using your own proficiency bonus anyway?) is immensely more valuable than a Beast Master companion.



OB1 said:


> But it’s not another PC and IMO shouldn’t be, at least not without expending resources that could be used to up combat power in other ways.



Like, say, subclass features? Oh...


----------



## ad_hoc (Aug 15, 2018)

OB1 said:


> But you also can’t deny that the Beastmaster companion, with its bonus to abilities based on Prof, does those things better than a familiar or using animal handling checks, while also being of value in combat.
> 
> I know it’s not at the value you would like, but it is comparable to the Hunter ranger options.
> 
> But it’s not another PC and IMO shouldn’t be, at least not without expending resources that could be used to up combat power in other ways.




I think people often forget to compare things to the actual options.

Warlock's Blade Pact is the most common example of this. The other pacts are not super powerful. The Warlock has 2 subclasses, and the pacts are the much weaker ones. While Blade isn't quite as powerful as Chain or Tome it's still fine. It gives the Warlock a good melee option when enemies close in. Let's them be versatile. It shouldn't make them a fighter.

Just like, as you said, Beastmaster shouldn't give them another character to control. The beast shouldn't be the star of combat, but instead a presence that is a minor help. The beast is fantastic at harassing ranged attackers and spellcasters for example.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 16, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> The beast shouldn't be the star of combat, but instead a presence that is a minor help.



Says you.

Lots people think otherwise. 

The archetype where the Master is mostly a passive entity that stands back and lets her fearsome beast rip her enemies to shreds is ubiquitous and popular. See Beast Tyrant of Gloomhaven or Hunter of World of Warcraft. 

There is absolutely no reason why something akin to that should be impossible for a competent designer to create. 

_Especially_ if the class is gated behind a "DM buy-in" sidebar explaining any subclass with two figures will inherently take up a larger share of the spotlight, and groups especially sensitive to that should pass it by.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 16, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Says you.
> 
> Lots people think otherwise.
> 
> ...




I dunno about "lots of people".  I get that you think otherwise.  

Look, it's not exactly rocket science.  Up to about 10th level, the fighter types are dealing about 20-30 points of damage per round.  Give or take.  Granted, pally's might be spiking here or there, but, as a benchmark, that's about where it is.  So, if the beastmaster's companion is the primary damage dealer, then the ranger can't deal any damage at all.  If your animal companion is dealing that 20-30 points per round, then there's just no space for the ranger itself to contribute.  

So, which do you want?  A class that strips away all combat abilities from the ranger so that the companion can be the damage star?  Or key the companion to the ranger's actions, which lets the ranger deal damage and the companion deal damage, or strip away all the combat abilities from the companion and let the ranger be the DPS star?

Because that's your choices.  At the end of the day, that's what you have to work with.  If we're going to leave the ranger with a full fighter type capabilities (high HP, multiple attacks per round, spells, high AC) AND have a companion that is dealing equal(ish) levels of damage, then it's far too unbalanced.  There's no way they're going to publish that.  They'd get crucified if they even tried.

Stay within that 20-30 points per round, and do whatever you want.  After 10th level, kick it up to about 40-50 points per round, similar to what a fighter is doing.  And you're good to go.  But, expecting WotC to bang out unbalanced classes just to satisfy you isn't going to happen.  Not when the class is being played pretty regularly as is plus they've already given us a "fixed" ranger for home games.  There's just no upside for them to give you what you want.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 16, 2018)

Now you're conflating the Ranger with some hypothetical "Hunter" I was mentioning. You're probably doing it intentionally since all your replies to me have been antagonistic and combative.

But no. I'm not talking about jamming together a Ranger with some beast more akin to a wildshaped Druid. That would indeed be quite overpowered. 

You're right about one thing though: it isn't rocket science. All we want is for a Ranger to be able to have a wolf or panther or whatever that:
1) acts on its own. If the Ranger can give up his own action to attack through the beast, that's fine. But that should obviously be on top of the beast's own action.

2) survives pretty much what the Ranger itself would survive. The design should assume the player identifies MORE with the beast than the human handler (lol)

Note that none of this has any direct connection to the related but different archetype I'm calling "Hunter".

No low-CR boar or bear I can find in the MM deals much damage (except at the lowest levels), and the Ranger is built to deal decent if not spectacular damage itself, so the "Hunter" archetype the Beastmaster is not.

Just remove the language about the beast not acting on its own (leaving it up to each DM to decide exactly how resourceful the beast is), grant the Beastmaster direct control over his beast as an action (probably instead of Extra Attack), and give the Beastmaster the ability to soak any and all damage dealt to his animal companion.

Done (okay, a polishing pass is probably needed). 

No rocket scientists were harmed by this post.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 16, 2018)

Your also conflating the Fighter's always-on DPR abilities with the Beastmaster's easy-to-kill pet. Which is one of the main problems.

The only time I've ever played a Beastmaster, it was to milk a snake for venom. Thematic as hell, but effective as a subclass? Noooope.



But we're not discussing the biggest flaw of the Ranger: It doesn't get Awaken.


----------



## delericho (Aug 16, 2018)

Hussar said:


> So, which do you want?  A class that strips away all combat abilities from the ranger so that the companion can be the damage star?  Or key the companion to the ranger's actions, which lets the ranger deal damage and the companion deal damage, or strip away all the combat abilities from the companion and let the ranger be the DPS star?




All three, but only one at any given time?

(Which would be reasonably easy to justify in the fluff - have the Ranger and his beast sharing a single primal spirit/soul/whatever. The more power the Ranger lends to the beast, the less he has for himself, and vice versa.)


----------



## Staffan (Aug 16, 2018)

I'm starting to think that 13th Age had the right idea about rangers. There, rangers get to choose three things at first level to specialize in. Having a wussy animal companion takes up one choice, but having a good one takes up two.


----------



## dco (Aug 16, 2018)

So the Ranger is well balanced because people play it?
I disagree completely, I think it is a badly designed class full of traps, curiously no one has played or plans to play that class in our group.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 16, 2018)

dco said:


> So the Ranger is well balanced because people play it?
> I disagree completely, I think it is a badly designed class full of traps, curiously no one has played or plans to play that class in our group.




The Hunter's fine, if slightly weak.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 16, 2018)

dco said:


> So the Ranger is well balanced because people play it?




The Beastmaster Ranger is playable because people play it. The Ranger as a class seems to be well balanced and fine, but it's really the Beastmaster sub-class that people tend to question. 

I'd like a few additions to the Beastmaster, like a new fighting style, and some new spells, to shore up the use of the animal companion. 

But I don't think people are speaking about the Ranger class in general "because people play it". 



> I disagree completely, I think it is a badly designed class full of traps, curiously no one has played or plans to play that class in our group.




So you have zero experience with the class and have judged it based on white room basic reading of the pages? OK then why were you bashing people who have played it - at least they tried it before making a judgement.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 16, 2018)

OB1 said:


> But you also can’t deny that the Beastmaster companion, with its bonus to abilities based on Prof, does those things better than a familiar or using animal handling checks, while also being of value in combat.
> 
> I know it’s not at the value you would like, but it is comparable to the Hunter ranger options.
> 
> But it’s not another PC and IMO shouldn’t be, at least not without expending resources that could be used to up combat power in other ways.





The bonus to the skill checks is nice, but most beasts don't have skills beyond perception and stealth, and a lot of the beasts have advantage on Perception anyways. Additionally, any ability that buffs skill checks for players can also be applied to the beasts... so we are talking a relatively minor difference in the roll of between +2 and +4 for the majority of the character's life. 

Sure, +2 is really nice, and if given a choice between not getting it and getting it, you take the +2 every time. But getting a +2 or +3 on perception and/or stealth checks isn't worth a full subclass, and as written with none of your spells to buff it up, an animal companion is not a great boon in combat either. 


My point isn't that a beast companion should be another PC in combat, but if we are going to claim the PHB Beastmaster works as intended because the companion has a lot of out of combat utility, we should recognize how easily the vast majority of that utility can be copied by other classes. 







Hussar said:


> I dunno about "lots of people".  I get that you think otherwise.
> 
> Look, it's not exactly rocket science.  Up to about 10th level, the fighter types are dealing about 20-30 points of damage per round.  Give or take.  Granted, pally's might be spiking here or there, but, as a benchmark, that's about where it is.  So, if the beastmaster's companion is the primary damage dealer, then the ranger can't deal any damage at all.  If your animal companion is dealing that 20-30 points per round, then there's just no space for the ranger itself to contribute.
> 
> ...





These are good numbers to look at. 

PHB Beastmaster, RAW right now. 10th level, with what I see as the standard companion, the Wolf. 

Beastmaster orders wolf to attack on their turn and the wolf gets a single attack. That attack is a 2d4+6, averaging about 11 damage. Beastmaster still has a bonus action, but I'm not sure what they are going to use it for that would be useful, and even if they could add damage, it'd likely be a 1d6, netting you 14 damage.  You set the standard at 20-30

11th level when you say we can bump up, the wolf gets two attack for22 or 28 average. Standard you gave is 40-50


So, as written, we are beneath your given numbers. And sure, we can add in the increased accuracy and wolf pack tactics, but few beasts are doing much better and a lot of other common choices (like the hawk and the owl) are many, many times worse in the average DPR. 


Just for fun, running that as a Revised Beastmaster, assuming double dipping the ability score improvements just for damage, gets the wolf dealing 2d4+8, jumping the wolf up to 13, but allows the ranger to make an attack, and the wolf to make a reaction attack. That gets us 26 from the wolf and 1d8+5 from the ranger, average around 10, putting us at 36, higher than the fighter, but the "bump" at 11th level relies on being able to hit multiple targets as the wolf, so it is still pretty close. And that is with no long tern resources, just like the fighter. 

So, DPR-wise, the revised Ranger is pretty close to the parameters you set up, while the PHB ranger falls behind by a wide margin. 

And the Hunter could be easily doing 3d8+10, getting them 25 average. Right in line with the Fighter, pretty superior to the PHB Beastmaster, and lagging behind the Revised Beastmaster, but I'm cool with that.


----------



## cbwjm (Aug 16, 2018)

I thought the PHB headmaster just gives up one of their attacks to order their companion to attack. So at 10th level the ranger attacks, orders companion to attack, and maybe uses their bonus action for an attack (if dual wielding).


----------



## Hussar (Aug 17, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> /snip
> 
> 
> Just for fun, running that as a Revised Beastmaster, assuming double dipping the ability score improvements just for damage, gets the wolf dealing 2d4+8, jumping the wolf up to 13, but allows the ranger to make an attack, and the wolf to make a reaction attack. That gets us 26 from the wolf and 1d8+5 from the ranger, average around 10, putting us at 36, higher than the fighter, but the "bump" at 11th level relies on being able to hit multiple targets as the wolf, so it is still pretty close. And that is with no long tern resources, just like the fighter.
> ...




So, as I said multiple times before, we have a fixed ranger in the UA.  But, somehow that isn't good enough?


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 17, 2018)

Hussar said:


> So, as I said multiple times before, we have a fixed ranger in the UA.  But, somehow that isn't good enough?



And as I have said multiple times before, the fixed UA Ranger is good enough*, now just put it in print.


*) or, rather, it's too strong, but nothing that a final balancing pass can't fix).


----------



## Yunru (Aug 17, 2018)

Hussar said:


> So, as I said multiple times before, we have a fixed ranger in the UA.  But, somehow that isn't good enough?




On the contrary. We have an OP Ranger and a fixed Beastmaster.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 17, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> I thought the PHB headmaster just gives up one of their attacks to order their companion to attack. So at 10th level the ranger attacks, orders companion to attack, and maybe uses their bonus action for an attack (if dual wielding).




Oops, you are right, buried in the 3rd level ability it says that extra attack still lets the ranger get off one attack. 

So the PHB beastmaster gets to add 1d8+5 to that 11, bumping them up to 21, just within the lines I was given. Good catch. 





Hussar said:


> So, as I said multiple times before, we have a fixed ranger in the UA.  But, somehow that isn't good enough?




Sure it is good enough for me, but a lot of people want to see something in a book, not playtest material. And while commenting on [MENTION=6796241]OB1[/MENTION]'s spells to fix the Beastmaster, which they will get printed instead of a full class revision that we have, reminding everyone of how oddly underpowered the Beastmaster tends to be came up. 

I also think there is a reaction to JC's post here, in that he implied there isn't a problem since people still play the class. And, as people on the internet, we feel the need to rehash out the argument of whether there is a problem or not





Yunru said:


> On the contrary. We have an OP Ranger and a fixed Beastmaster.




I'd argue they are above the curve, but not OP. Like I've said before, had one in a party for a two year campaign, she never outshone the insane antics of the other party members. (Allowing a monk/druid to keep their monk abilities while beastshaped, that was OP and a mistake I'll not allow again)


----------



## Yunru (Aug 17, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> I'd argue they are above the curve, but not OP. Like I've said before, had one in a party for a two year campaign, she never outshone the insane antics of the other party members. (Allowing a monk/druid to keep their monk abilities while beastshaped, that was OP and a mistake I'll not allow again)




It's only the early levels I feel are too strong (way to steal the Assassin's whole shtick before level 17, and two levels early at that), but unfortunately, they are also the most accessible levels.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Aug 17, 2018)

As far as the PHB Ranger (with official splats):

Beastmaster sucks
Hunter is meh
Gloom Stalker is actually really good
Horizon Walker is solid
Monster Hunter is meh


----------



## Gladius Legis (Aug 17, 2018)

Yunru said:


> But we're not discussing the biggest flaw of the Ranger: It doesn't get Awaken.




This would solve so many Ranger problems.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 18, 2018)

Gladius Legis said:


> This would solve so many Ranger problems.




Not sure a 5th level spell is going to solve problems. Coming online at 17th level means the characters is either long done or almost done. You don't "fix" things at that point.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 18, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> Not sure a 5th level spell is going to solve problems. Coming online at 17th level means the characters is either long done or almost done. You don't "fix" things at that point.




I agree. Instead it should be called Awaken Companion, target only companions, and be a third level spell.


----------



## dco (Aug 19, 2018)

Yunru said:


> The Hunter's fine, if slightly weak.



Try one with two swords.



Mistwell said:


> The Beastmaster Ranger is playable because people play it. The Ranger as a class seems to be well balanced and fine, but it's really the Beastmaster sub-class that people tend to question.
> 
> I'd like a few additions to the Beastmaster, like a new fighting style, and some new spells, to shore up the use of the animal companion.
> 
> But I don't think people are speaking about the Ranger class in general "because people play it".



Depends on what you understand from the twitter screenshots, for me it is quite clear.
I find the melee hunter also extremely bad.



> So you have zero experience with the class and have judged it based on white room basic reading of the pages? OK then why were you bashing people who have played it - at least they tried it before making a judgement.



I don't need experience playing the class to see its problems.
I didn't bash anyone.


----------



## Eubani (Aug 19, 2018)

Maths is not subjective. Bad maths is bad maths regardless of having played the sub class or not.


----------



## ad_hoc (Aug 19, 2018)

Eubani said:


> Maths is not subjective. Bad maths is bad maths regardless of having played the sub class or not.




Right, but the value that people place on various abilities is subjective.

Most people don't know how to properly value things. The only reason top player's opinions in various competitive games are trusted is because they're top players.

D&D isn't competitive so what is seen as 'best' is a matter of what the majority of people think is best. 

There are many nuances and concepts in 'optimization' threads that are never even touched on. My advice to 'optimizers' is to find a competitive game and try to excel at that. If there are enough stakes involved they will likely find challenge. Skills they develop there can be brought back to D&D too if they like. Though at that point they will probably recognize that optimizing in D&D given the all the different scenarios and interactions is a silly endeavour.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 19, 2018)

dco said:


> Try one with two swords.
> 
> Depends on what you understand from the twitter screenshots, for me it is quite clear.
> I find the melee hunter also extremely bad.




Why do you find the melee hunter bad? 

Sure, Hunter's Mark interfering with making the bonus action attack is aggravating, but if you pull it off you can get 2d6+2d6+1d8+modx2 by third level. That makes them a blender of death. 4th level (or v. Human) you can turn that into 2d8+2d6+1d8+modx2 and +1 AC. Get Warcaster for advantage on concentration checks and you are sitting relatively pretty 

They have little spell support, but I'd argue the Archer ranger doesn't get a lot of spell support either once they hit mid-levels, since most of the "arrow" spells are kind of underwhelming, and most of the best ranger spells are non-specific. 

In fact, I'd say the only really major loss is Swift Quiver, and the fact that Volley is superior to Whirlwind attack in most battlefields. 




Eubani said:


> Maths is not subjective. Bad maths is bad maths regardless of having played the sub class or not.





To be clear, what math are we talking about?


----------



## Eubani (Aug 19, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> Why do you find the melee hunter bad?
> 
> Sure, Hunter's Mark interfering with making the bonus action attack is aggravating, but if you pull it off you can get 2d6+2d6+1d8+modx2 by third level. That makes them a blender of death. 4th level (or v. Human) you can turn that into 2d8+2d6+1d8+modx2 and +1 AC. Get Warcaster for advantage on concentration checks and you are sitting relatively pretty
> 
> ...




That the Beast Master is combat ineffective and that the small amount of utility gained nowhere makes up for it.


----------



## Eubani (Aug 19, 2018)

A Hunter with Find Familiar is a better beast Master if utility is your thing.


----------



## ad_hoc (Aug 19, 2018)

Eubani said:


> That the Beast Master is combat ineffective and that the small amount of utility gained nowhere makes up for it.




Once per turn the Hunter can deal an extra 1d8 damage to a creature who has already been damaged. That isn't going to make a combat ineffective Ranger effective. So if they are already effective, then so is the Beastmaster.

The Beastmaster can do things like have their beast flank around the enemy's position and harass the spellcasters and archers and such. This doesn't even cost anything. The beast can still take an OA even without being commanded. The Beastmaster's 7th level ability is stronger than the Hunter's too. An extra body on the battlefield taking Dodge can be an effective shield for the party's casters.

The Beastmaster subclass isn't amazing, but then neither is the Hunter. They need to be compared against each other.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 19, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> The Beastmaster can do things like have their beast flank around the enemy's position and harass the spellcasters and archers and such. This doesn't even cost anything.



Why are we circling back to issues already covered exhaustively? 



> The beast can still take an OA even without being commanded. The Beastmaster's 7th level ability is stronger than the Hunter's too. An extra body on the battlefield taking Dodge can be an effective shield for the party's casters.



Only if the combat is trivially easy. In any fight where an extra body would make a difference, the pet is far too squishy and the Ranger has no means to keep it alive.



> The Beastmaster subclass isn't amazing, but then neither is the Hunter. They need to be compared against each other.



They need to be compared to:
1) other classes
2) expectations 

The Hunter subclass is a decent chassi for a ranged combatant, especially in a Fighter/Ranger multiclass.

The Beastmaster is severely lacking in almost every compartment. 

The argument "since the subclass sees play we don't need to fix it" is preposterous and misleading.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 19, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Why are we circling back to issues already covered exhaustively?
> 
> 
> Only if the combat is trivially easy. In any fight where an extra body would make a difference, the pet is far too squishy and the Ranger has no means to keep it alive.
> ...




Their main measures have been "do people play this class?" and "do they have fun when doing so?"

If it is both popular and considered fun to play, why wouldn't they focus their energy elsewhere? If the perceived "problems" have been resolved as far as the player base is concerned, while the "solutions" were not working for the player base, why would they keep pursuing that path?


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 19, 2018)

Eubani said:


> That the Beast Master is combat ineffective and that the small amount of utility gained nowhere makes up for it.




Mathematically, the Ranger and the Beastmaster are fine. WotC has made it clear that there is no functional, mathematical issue at stake (which they know because of playtesting), but one of player perceptions. The revisions were never aimed at mathematically "fixing" anything, because it wasn't "broken." They were aimed at offering something that fit player needs better. On that score, the revisions were basically failures in UA feedback, and in the meantime the demographics have shifted and there isn't an issue with player perceptions on the Ranger at this point, particularly post-Xanathars (new subclasses, new spells).


----------



## Pauln6 (Aug 19, 2018)

I think a beast's abilities should be balanced against the fact that they probably will get taken down in a tough fight.  If they are too squishy though, the issue is how to mitigate that both tactically and practically.   Spells that help plug a gap for a tough fight might be a reasonable if not perfect patch. 

Would giving the Beast companion extra extra hit dice of their own based on their base hit dice plus an extra hit die equal to the ranger's proficiency?  Not much, but then they don't need much, particularly if you let rangers share the benefits of spending their own hit dice with companions.


----------



## SkidAce (Aug 19, 2018)

I don't think I already said this in this thread....

I replaced the PHB Beastmaster Companion rules with the Revised Ranger Beastmaster Rules and left everything else about the PHB ranger remain the same.

Done. (so far...)


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 19, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Their main measures have been "do people play this class?" and "do they have fun when doing so?"
> 
> If it is both popular and considered fun to play, why wouldn't they focus their energy elsewhere? If the perceived "problems" have been resolved as far as the player base is concerned, while the "solutions" were not working for the player base, why would they keep pursuing that path?



Maybe because they can do better?

Maybe it's just real convenient to settle for "good enough"? Not rock the boat? 

Equating "popular" with "it's all us animal companion lovers get" is probably only marketing speak, and there's little reason for you to swallow it hook line and sinker.

Maybe you don't always act as if you have the producer's best interests at heart instead of the consumer's. But you sure do now, and it is a blight on this forum.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 19, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Mathematically, the Ranger and the Beastmaster are fine.



Bollocks. 

If the "math" tells you to not weep over your dead tiger or bear, the math is wrong.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 19, 2018)

Pauln6 said:


> Not much, but then they don't need much, particularly if you let rangers share the benefits of spending their own hit dice with companions.



If rangers could share their hit points with their pets, much would be resolved.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 19, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Their main measures have been "do people play this class?" and "do they have fun when doing so?"
> 
> If it is both popular and considered fun to play, why wouldn't they focus their energy elsewhere? If the perceived "problems" have been resolved as far as the player base is concerned, while the "solutions" were not working for the player base, why would they keep pursuing that path?





I have to wonder though, since we don't have access to their data, what exactly they measured. 

No one has been complaining about the Xanathar's rangers, because for the most part they are perfectly fine. And in fact, they have additional spells known which is a big step towards helping the ranger spellcasting as compared to it's closest relative classes. A feature that the PHB rangers don't have. 

Also, almost no one thinks that the Hunter is poorly balanced, and conversations about fixing the ranger have almost always included the caveat that the PHB Hunter works just fine. 

In addition, we have the Revised Ranger, which many people are happy about. 

And, we can't deny Multi-classing can change things even more. 



So, what did WoTC learn in their surveys? If, after Xanathar's, they simply learned that a lot of people are playing Ranger's, this actually tells us nothing about whether or not the Revised Ranger was still needed. Because playing a Revised Ranger is still playing a Ranger. It tells us nothing about the state of the Beastmaster, because people playing Hunters, Gloomstalkers, and Horizon Walkers are still playing Rangers. 


So if all WoTC has determined is that the ranger is fine, except for the Beastmaster, then they haven't addressed the main point of contention that has existed this entire time. And, considering nothing has changed mechanically for the Beastmaster, we are left with one of two conclusions. 

Either people have always been happy with the Beastmaster (which has never seemed to be the case as far as I have ever seen or heard) or people don't mind the Beastmaster being sub-par with the other Ranger options to turn to. 

That does not lead to the solution I want or need for my groups though, which is that the Beastmaster is brought up to par with the other rangers. Because, people have not had fun playing a PHB Beastmaster at my table, so it isn't where I need it to be yet. 

And, personally, the class being fine despite one of it's most iconic sub-classes not meeting player perceptions and requiring jumping through hoops to work doesn't sound right to me. The Beastmaster only starts becoming mechanically "fine" at 5th level, for two full levels the player is either not attacking with their character, or not using their beast. And, many of the "best" combat options for the beast have it simply regulated to a pool of hp and an Armor Class with Dodge... which sucks to be honest, I can't imagine getting excited by the tactical possibilities of standing there and doing nothing.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 19, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Maybe because they can do better?
> 
> Maybe it's just real convenient to settle for "good enough"? Not rock the boat?
> 
> ...




Better by which metric? People playing the class and having fun with it, more than with most theoretically superior Classes, is already a reality. And since that is their prime goal, how can they do better? Make the Ranger the single most popular Class...?

As to what else "pet class" lovers might want, Mearls has been getting into that a bit on the Happy Fun Hour, for the Shaper Psion, and the spell-based solution he is exploring could provide an elegant solution for Druids and Rangers who want a pet just as well.

My interest, as a consumer, is to see myself and friends playing and having fun. As long as WotC keeps their eyes on that ball, and provides solid product, I am happy.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 20, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Better by which metric? People playing the class and having fun with it, more than with most theoretically superior Classes, is already a reality. And since that is their prime goal, how can they do better? Make the Ranger the single most popular Class...?
> 
> As to what else "pet class" lovers might want, Mearls has been getting into that a bit on the Happy Fun Hour, for the Shaper Psion, and the spell-baaed aolitit he is exploring could provide an elegant solution for Druids and Rangers who want a pet just as well.
> 
> My interest, as a consumer, is to see myself and friends playing and having fun. As long as WotC keeps their eyes on that ball, and provides solid product, I am happy.





The metric depends I guess. In this instance, I don't think the Beastmaster works as advertised. I can still squeeze fun out of it, but the Revised Ranger shows that is could be done better and made more fun. 

As for potential future fixes, giving us a different class that does pets "better" isn't going to make the PHB Beastmaster better. And, without knowing what "spell-baaed aolitit" he is working on, I can't comment on that as a potential fix. 

And... Even if it could be made into a fix, I don't see how that changes anything we are saying about the Beastmaster


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 20, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> The metric depends I guess. In this instance, I don't think the Beastmaster works as advertised. I can still squeeze fun out of it, but the Revised Ranger shows that is could be done better and made more fun.
> 
> As for potential future fixes, giving us a different class that does pets "better" isn't going to make the PHB Beastmaster better. And, without knowing what "spell-baaed aolitit" he is working on, I can't comment on that as a potential fix.
> 
> And... Even if it could be made into a fix, I don't see how that changes anything we are saying about the Beastmaster




Sorry, typing on the phone with fat thumbs: "spell-based solution," I recommend watching the episode on the Shaper from a few weeks ago, he really seems to be on to a way to have pets that are balanced and don't break the action economy. If it pans out, I could see an approach as he is exploring replacing the Beastmaster. 

As to the PHB Beastmaster itself, it works the way it was intended to, which doesn't match everybody's expectations. Their big find that they shard from ranger surveys was how diverse concepts of "Ranger" actually are, or more accurately, we're. They seem to be suggesting now that the "problem" has been resolved by increasing familiarity from existing players, and a lack of preconceptions from newer players.

Now, what it does seem they are interested in exploring are "alternative class features," if people want that for all classes. A more alacarte option could give them the ability to provide options for those dissatisfied, without been ng disruptive to the game. If they do that, it would be the closest to a book like the good Cap seems to want as possible.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 20, 2018)

dco said:


> Try one with two swords.
> 
> 
> Depends on what you understand from the twitter screenshots, for me it is quite clear.
> ...




If you are "seeing" problems with the Hunter Ranger without having played it, and you see a large number of people here who have actually had experience playing it and find it to be fine, then you should probably consider playing it first before deciding it's bad. You might be wrong. It's not "extremely bad" in the opinions of many, many people who have actually played it.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 20, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Why are we circling back to issues already covered exhaustively?




If this is a position you ascribe to, I don't ever, EVER want to see you arguing the quantity or pace or depth or complexity of the rules crunching is lacking or needs to be altered. Because you've made that argument a good 40 times over the past several years.

If however you intend to continue to make that argument, then maybe don't judge others for circling back to issues already covered. Doctor, heal thyself.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 20, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Maybe because they can do better?
> 
> Maybe it's just real convenient to settle for "good enough"? Not rock the boat?
> 
> ...




I'm so sorry we're having badwrongfun. If you find it such a blight on the forum, I am sure you can do better than this forum. After all, if your standard is "do better" for WOTC, why isn't it "do better" for yourself?


----------



## Retreater (Aug 20, 2018)

Disappointed in the original ranger design, the announcement, and the haughty way Crawford did it. 5e is becoming less and less my system the more I get to know it.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 20, 2018)

Retreater said:


> Disappointed in the original ranger design, the announcement, and the haughty way Crawford did it. 5e is becoming less and less my system the more I get to know it.




I am curious why you think it's haughty?


----------



## Yunru (Aug 20, 2018)

Retreater said:


> Disappointed in the original ranger design, the announcement, and the haughty way Crawford did it. 5e is becoming less and less my system the more I get to know it.




Hey, remember when they promised 5e would be modular enough to play any past edition?
Remember when they promised 5e would be modular?

#UnrealisticGoals
#BrokenPromises


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 20, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Hey, remember when they promised 5e would be modular enough to play any past edition?




No, I do not. Link? I remember talk of harkening back to the styles of prior editions, but I remember nothing about being modular enough to play any past edition. I'd like to see what you're referring to.

For example, this is a very early Q&A with Mike Mearls about modularity in 5e for people who like 4e fighters:

Q: Are you actually going to include modules for 4E fans who want flexible, intelligent, veteran fighters? 

A [Mike Mearls]: [For] Fighters – We have a maneuver system in design that we’re playtesting here in the office. In my Monday game, Chris Perkins’ fighter could choose between an inaccurate but high damage attack, a defensive attack that force an enemy to pay attention to him, and a second defensive option that boosted his AC. That’s just the surface of what we have going on in there. I’d also like to extend the maneuver idea to other areas of the game – social maneuvers, rogue tricks, things like that. Our goal is to make a wide variety of characters possible, rather than stick each class into a limited box. Just as we’re moving roles out of class, we’re also moving complexity limits out of class as much as we can. Encounter Powers – We’re looking at a mechanic that draws on the idea of pushing yourself beyond your limits between rests, basically a stamina-based mechanic. This is precisely the kind of more complex option that we place in the game for players who want to take on that sort of approach.

As you can see from that example, he is not saying or implying 5e would be "modular enough to play 4e" for example. He's saying there is modularity in place to play a 4e-like game in some respects. That was always the approach them mentioned. I am not aware of any implication you could actually play a prior edition using 5e rules.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 20, 2018)

There where only vague mentions (of which my google fu is lacking), but I remember it being talked about the core systems being built so that modular rules could just be added on.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 20, 2018)

Yunru said:


> There where only vague mentions (of which my google fu is lacking), but I remember it being talked about the core systems being built so that modular rules could just be added on.




Yes that's correct, but the modular rules were never (as far as I am aware) mentioned as being, "you can play another edition using this editions rules".  It was always, "we have this module which is similar to X edition" like "we have this battlemaster fighter module which makes a fighter that is similar to a 4e fighter" and "we have this champion fighter module which makes a fighter that is similar to a 2e fighter".


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 21, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I am curious why you think it's haughty?




I can't speak for [MENTION=42040]Retreater[/MENTION] , but for me there were a few lines in his tweet that jumped out to me. 

"There is one ranger: the one in the Player's Handbook"

"Frankly, the revised ranger helped feed an internet-fueled view of the class... I wasn't sorry to end it."

Both of those... the tone I picture them said in is almost derogatory. And, while I missed whatever it was he said in 2017 about never doing an alternative class, as someone posted earlier in this thread, two years ago near the end of 2016 (09/12/2016) they were saying very different things about the state of the Ranger.  

Just in the first paragraph of that PDF we have "the class’s high levels of player dissatisfaction and its ranking as D&D’s weakest class by a significant margin" quoted as the reason for the revisions. 

And they talk about doing research and finding the class lacking back then, it's abilities rated as some of the worst in the game and people generally being unhappy with it. 

And you know... that is weird to me. I get that player dynamics change, especially over two years, but to go from one of the weakest and least satisfying classes to being "not even in the bottom third" with no revision to the rules or class. That is weird. And, it isn't like people hadn't had time to really appreciate the class, the game was two years old at that point. 

I don't think a player base shift caused this change. To me, it seems to be that the biggest change between 2016 and 2018 is the release of Xanathar's in 2017, with better made subclasses for the Ranger. Which, makes Crawford's comment that "there is one ranger" and that it is in the PHB hilarious, because the PHB Ranger might not be why people are suddenly happy, that'd be the Xanathar Ranger's, and they don't excuse the Beastmaster still being what it has always been. Dissatisfying. 

And, I think as someone who really got excited by the Revised Ranger, and who is keeping those rules alive at his own table, Crawford talking about "ending it" like he has banned it from all tables, kind of upsets me. All of those homebrew and UA rangers are still out there being used, so maybe we don't need an officially printed solution, but that doesn't mean that WoTC actually got it right with the PHB Ranger.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 21, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> I can't speak for [MENTION=42040]Retreater[/MENTION] , but for me there were a few lines in his tweet that jumped out to me.
> 
> "There is one ranger: the one in the Player's Handbook"
> 
> ...




To be fair, the play base shift in that same period was somewhere in the millions. That is no small change.


----------



## cbwjm (Aug 21, 2018)

I'd also argue that a bunch of people on the internet saying that WotC got the PHB ranger wrong doesn't mean WotC actually did.


----------



## SkidAce (Aug 21, 2018)

Anecdotally I know, but at least three new players over the last two years have basically said "Why does my ranger lose attacks by fighting with his beast partner?"

It seemed like they all felt* the beast was a creature (they understood NPC) of its own. 





*they don't hang out on forums, this was an emergent gut feeling from them.


----------



## Jester David (Aug 21, 2018)

Yunru said:


> There where only vague mentions (of which my google fu is lacking), but I remember it being talked about the core systems being built so that modular rules could just be added on.



Not really. 
Early on the designers talked about how you could hack the game to make it _feel_ like older editions, but compatibility was never on the table. That a 4e fan couple play at the same table as a 3e fan and a 1e fan. 
But people read the comment and misinterpreted it as being actually compatible with past editions, which doesn’t seem remotely possible...


----------



## Retreater (Aug 21, 2018)

I can only speak to my experience, but the local meta is that the PHB ranger isn't good and most players in my community prefer the UA ranger.
I think to dismiss the preferences of many players shows a lack of engagement with the player base, especially when the game is designed to be modular enough to support a variety of builds. His terse reply to end discussion and to shoot down an obviously popular choice (even if their D&D Beyond data or whatever doesn't necessarily support it) comes across as the same type of hubris that alienated many players during the 4e launch.
I think 5e's success is getting to their heads.


----------



## ad_hoc (Aug 21, 2018)

Retreater said:


> I think to dismiss the preferences of many players shows a lack of engagement with the player base




Who is the player base?



> I think 5e's success is getting to their heads.




Think about that one. Maybe you aren't the player base anymore.


----------



## Retreater (Aug 21, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> Who is the player base?
> 
> 
> 
> Think about that one. Maybe you aren't the player base anymore.




I'd say that the player base includes all the players of the game, especially when there are enough players engaging with the revised ranger to have 30 pages of responses on this thread.
And yeah, I realize I'm probably no longer the main demographic for D&D, which is moving to an "auto success" story-driven game in the tradition of Critical Role that has little balance, interesting mechanics, or exciting nail-biting combat.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 21, 2018)

Retreater said:


> I can only speak to my experience, but the local meta is that the PHB ranger isn't good and most players in my community prefer the UA ranger.
> I think to dismiss the preferences of many players shows a lack of engagement with the player base, especially when the game is designed to be modular enough to support a variety of builds. His terse reply to end discussion and to shoot down an obviously popular choice (even if their D&D Beyond data or whatever doesn't necessarily support it) comes across as the same type of hubris that alienated many players during the 4e launch.
> I think 5e's success is getting to their heads.




"Obviously popular" isn't apparently so obvious.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 21, 2018)

Retreater said:


> I'd say that the player base includes all the players of the game, especially when there are enough players engaging with the revised ranger to have 30 pages of responses on this thread.
> And yeah, I realize I'm probably no longer the main demographic for D&D, which is moving to an "auto success" story-driven game in the tradition of Critical Role that has little balance, interesting mechanics, or exciting nail-biting combat.




Bringing Critical Role into this discussion in this way is odd, as watching Laura Bailey play a Beastmaster no for hundreds of hours is a pretty good anecdotal case study on that subclass (very fiddley and doesn't work the way she wanted it to, but she still dominated mic of the time).


----------



## Ristamar (Aug 21, 2018)

The ever-present powerful "pet" play style is unsuited to D&D as far as incorporating it into a reasonably balanced action economy under the umbrella of one character. It is a popular trope, but the end result was not going to satisfy a lot of people unless it essentially functions as a secondary PC (i.e. can hold its own in combat) . They'd have been better off presenting that type of Beastmaster as a variant instead of a piece of the core class.


----------



## ad_hoc (Aug 21, 2018)

Retreater said:


> I'd say that the player base includes all the players of the game, especially when there are enough players engaging with the revised ranger to have 30 pages of responses on this thread.
> And yeah, I realize I'm probably no longer the main demographic for D&D, which is moving to an "auto success" story-driven game in the tradition of Critical Role that has little balance, interesting mechanics, or exciting nail-biting combat.




If by 'player base' you mean 'players' then just say players, player base has a different meaning.

5e is story-driven, as a roleplaying game should be. It is also well balanced, has interesting mechanics, and exciting combat.

It's cool if you don't like or understand the game. I'm sure the player base and WotC are okay with that too.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 21, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> I'd also argue that a bunch of people on the internet saying that WotC got the PHB ranger wrong doesn't mean WotC actually did.




Very true, but in rebuttal to every complaint I've leveraged about the PHB Beastmaster in this thread, I've only really gotten one response defending it. 

"People are playing Rangers and having fun" leaving "so the Beastmanster can't be that bad" to be implied. Which is some faulty logic, since Ranger =/= Beastmaster, but also isn't really a rebuttal of the complaints against the Beastmaster. 

Heck, even the designers seem content with responding "people are playing, so why should we fix it" which is not a defense of the merits of the subclass. 






Parmandur said:


> Bringing Critical Role into this discussion in this way is odd, as watching Laura Bailey play a Beastmaster no for hundreds of hours is a pretty good anecdotal case study on that subclass (very fiddley and doesn't work the way she wanted it to, but she still dominated mic of the time).





I agree that was an odd choice, but it seems Retreater is in a camp that doesn't like the show. His loss in my opinion. 

Personally, I loved Vex'halia, but I think our views on how the Beastmaster was showcased don't really align. Trinket wasn't a factor in almost any combat over the years of the campaign. In fact, I most remember Trinket in the storytelling aspects of "I have a pet bear" and then whenever combat was starting Trinket either stayed towards the back or stayed in the necklace. 

And, dominating the mic is entirely based off the group dynamic and their training as actors. Nothing at all to do with the classes they were playing.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 21, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> Very true, but in rebuttal to every complaint I've leveraged about the PHB Beastmaster in this thread, I've only really gotten one response defending it.
> 
> "People are playing Rangers and having fun" leaving "so the Beastmanster can't be that bad" to be implied. Which is some faulty logic, since Ranger =/= Beastmaster, but also isn't really a rebuttal of the complaints against the Beastmaster.
> 
> ...




By "dominated" I meant that she laid out tremendous damage, and definitely contributed her fair share when the stakes we're high. She didn't want to put Trinket in danger, however, which goes to show how differently the designers and many Beastmaster inclined players were thinking. 

Now, Crawford just mentioned the Ranger qua Ranger, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Beastmaster remains a steadily popular subclass, even if it is fiddley and convoluted. Narrative over optimization is how people make their characters, in general, and people love a pet story.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 21, 2018)

Crawford didn't say they would not address the known issues with beastmaster rangers. He said he won't be offering an alternative version of the class. Not the same thing.  And as many people in this thread have mentioned, just a few things like  new fighting style and some new spells can go a huge way to fixing it, without the need for an alternative anything.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 21, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Hey, remember when they promised 5e would be modular enough to play any past edition?



I remember seeing the rarity rules for magic items and immediately going "this can't be right, there's no support for playing the game the way it was played during the entire run of 3rd edition and the d20 revolution, including Pathfinder!?" 

I expected an utility-based magic item economy to be featured in the very first splatbook. 

It never came, and 5E has never been truly 3E compatible as a result.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 21, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> As you can see from that example, he is not saying or implying 5e would be "modular enough to play 4e" for example.



Nobody's talking about 4E here, an obviously different game that noone really thought 5E would be directly compatible with.

In the larger view, do you never tire of being a mouthpiece of WotC? Don't you think they should have to answer for themselves?


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 21, 2018)

Jester David said:


> But people read the comment and misinterpreted it as being actually compatible with past editions, which doesn’t seem remotely possible...



Don't do that strawman. Nobody expects two editions to be "actually compatible", since as you imply, that would mean they're really only one edition. 

Leaving d20 modules (and frankly, 5E modules too) with "worthless" gold, is, on the other hand, breaking the level of compatability that *is* reasonable to expect.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 21, 2018)

Retreater said:


> I think 5e's success is getting to their heads.



Unlike Mistwell I see a real clear possibility they're just saying the PHB Ranger is popular to get the fans off their backs - they've decided they don't want to risk doing anything at this point.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 21, 2018)

Ristamar said:


> The ever-present powerful "pet" play style is unsuited to D&D as far as incorporating it into a reasonably balanced action economy under the umbrella of one character. It is a popular trope, but the end result was not going to satisfy a lot of people unless it essentially functions as a secondary PC (i.e. can hold its own in combat) . They'd have been better off presenting that type of Beastmaster as a variant instead of a piece of the core class.



I don't think anyone's contesting that.

What we're discussing is WotC's decision to do nothing at all with the Beastmaster. 

And justifying that by reversing their earlier stance on the subclass. 

And completely dismissing anyone who waited for the update, including the pat on the head "the secret is you're all wrong".

And the preposterous and aggravating line of reasoning that some posters somehow pervert into something good...: 

"no new rules fixes are needed since sales are strong anyway, so we've decided we no longer need our original customer base".


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 21, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Crawford didn't say they would not address the known issues with beastmaster rangers. He said he won't be offering an alternative version of the class. Not the same thing.  And as many people in this thread have mentioned, just a few things like  new fighting style and some new spells can go a huge way to fixing it, without the need for an alternative anything.



Why do you gloss over the most irritating thing he said, the bit about the secret?


----------



## Sadras (Aug 21, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> I'd also argue that a bunch of people on the internet saying that WotC got the PHB ranger wrong doesn't mean WotC actually did.




Although factually correct, my issue with statements like these is that they reduce the voices on the internet to inconsequential. One can use that for every issue one raises with the game to just shutdown the _naysayers_ - whether it be every other week for some or once in a while for others, like those who didn't like the amendment/clarification to the Shield Master feat.


----------



## Sadras (Aug 21, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Unlike Mistwell I see a real clear possibility they're just saying the PHB Ranger is popular to get the fans off their backs - they've decided they don't want to risk doing anything at this point.




Out of curiosity, what is the risk that you foresee?


----------



## cbwjm (Aug 21, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Although factually correct, my issue with statements like these is that they reduce the voices on the internet to inconsequential. One can use that for every issue one raises with the game to just shutdown the _naysayers_ - whether it be every other week for some or once in a while for others, like those who didn't like the amendment/clarification to the Shield Master feat.



Not that it ever would because this is the internet and everyone thinks their opinion matters, but if it shut up the people who just seem to hate on the developers then the world would be a better place. So many  people don't really offer up much in the way of constructive criticism. They just want to shout out that others are wrong and that what they believe is right.


----------



## Sadras (Aug 21, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> Not that it ever would because this is the internet and everyone thinks their opinion matters, but if it shut up the people who just seem to hate on the developers then the world would be a better place. So many  people don't really offer up much in the way of constructive criticism. They just want to shout out that others are wrong and that what they believe is right.




LOL. And I thought politics weren't allowed on this forum.


----------



## ad_hoc (Aug 21, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Although factually correct, my issue with statements like these is that they reduce the voices on the internet to inconsequential. One can use that for every issue one raises with the game to just shutdown the _naysayers_ - whether it be every other week for some or once in a while for others, like those who didn't like the amendment/clarification to the Shield Master feat.




It shuts down the argument that the people on the internet represent the majority. That's all.

WotC are saying that the majority like the original Ranger. People here are arguing that they don't because people on forums complain about it.

If people want to come to a forum to talk about an aspect of a game they don't like that's cool. Maybe it is just to vent, maybe to see if others see it that way, or to brainstorm solutions, all sorts of reasons to come talk about something.

But if the subject of the discussion is that WotC isn't listening to a majority of the players then pointing out that people on forums represent a very tiny amount of the player population is valid. 

If most people like a subclass and that subclass doesn't disrupt the game then it is a success. There are a ton of classes and subclasses to choose from. It is expected to dislike some of them.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 21, 2018)

The fact that he mentions about it just being a loud online voice is factually incongruous with _their own statement_ in the UA, as others have pointed out.
I guess Jeremy's taking inspiration from Trump now?


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 21, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Although factually correct, my issue with statements like these is that they reduce the voices on the internet to inconsequential.



Yes. Essentially they're arguing there's no point to having forum discussions like this. Or to be more precise: nobody should criticize anything. (Telling everybody how great WotC is doing is fine)

I consider it a form of trolling.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 21, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Out of curiosity, what is the risk that you foresee?



Publishing quality supplements carry an inherent risk.

A risk of inadvertently publishing something unbalanced, say. Or, ultimately, a jumping-the-shark moment.

Of course I don't see any actual risk in fixing the Beastmaster. But apparently WotC thinks they're too good to bother with the inconvenience of having to confess one of their subclasses isn't good enough.

They would rather declare the PHB "evergreen" and in no need of improvement...


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 21, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Yes. Essentially they're arguing there's no point to having forum discussions like this. Or to be more precise: nobody should criticize anything. (Telling everybody how great WotC is doing is fine)
> 
> I consider it a form of trolling.




Well, there is no "point" insofar as WotC doesn't read the forums, and this discussion will have no effect on the overall game. This is all of us sharing our opinions. Nothing more, nothing less. Disagreement is not trolling, but discussion. If there is a point, it is for us to look at disagreements and think through them.

There is nothing wrong with you disliking a particular direction that WotC. That doesn't make your preference an objective fact that they are fool's for acting against.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 21, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Publishing quality supplements carry an inherent risk.
> 
> A risk of inadvertently publishing something unbalanced, say. Or, ultimately, a jumping-the-shark moment.
> 
> ...




The PHB is already evergreen, and while it could be improved IMO (remove Feats and Multiclassing in favor of some more races and subclasses or the index, for instance), they aren't going to invalidate anybody's book, or put anybody in the position of feeling that their book is outdated. They won't change it until 5E, minimum. You keeping using this phrase "good enough," but again: "enough" on what metric? If the subclass is meeting their metrics, then by definition it is "good enough."


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 21, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Although factually correct, my issue with statements like these is that they reduce the voices on the internet to inconsequential. One can use that for every issue one raises with the game to just shutdown the _naysayers_ - whether it be every other week for some or once in a while for others, like those who didn't like the amendment/clarification to the Shield Master feat.




Yes, voices on the Internet are inconsequential, or more accurately, statiscially irrelevant. WotC stopped participation in forums around the time that they let it be known that their research demonstrated that forum received opinion was often close to the opposite of popular opinion and taste. While they will communicate on mass social media, they aren't making decisions based on those voices.


----------



## Sadras (Aug 21, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Yes, voices on the Internet are inconsequential, or more accurately, statiscially irrelevant. WotC stopped participation in forums around the time that they let it be known that their research demonstrated that forum received opinion was often close to the opposite of popular opinion and taste. While they will communicate on mass social media, they aren't making decisions based on those voices.




And yet playtest feedback is done via the internet


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 21, 2018)

Sadras said:


> And yet playtest feedback is done via the internet




In surveys, that they can design and analyze for useful data. Not just try and read the tealeaves of forum arguments between a couple dozen folks. It's like the difference between the national weather service and trying to predict the weather by reading the entrails of a slain goat. Both methods can get it wrong, and both can produce correct predictions. But one is a more sound basis for decision making.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 21, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> In surveys, that they can design and analyze for useful data. Not just try and read the tealeaves of forum arguments between a couple dozen folks. It's like the difference between the national weather service and trying to predict the weather by reading the entrails of a slain goat. Both methods can get it wrong, and both can produce correct predictions. But one is a more sound basis for decision making.




And yet said surveys placed the ranger as the least favourite class.


----------



## Sadras (Aug 21, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> In surveys, that they can design and analyze for useful data. Not just try and read the tealeaves of forum arguments between a couple dozen folks. It's like the difference between the national weather service and trying to predict the weather by reading the entrails of a slain goat. Both methods can get it wrong, and both can produce correct predictions. But one is a more sound basis for decision making.




I'd hazard a guess that many of the same people answering the D&D surveys are the same people on the forums - including those so-called _dozen folks_, so the greater playerbase has generally always been inconsequential. But yes, your point stands that the data gained through a survey is easier to analyse and quantify.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 21, 2018)

Yunru said:


> And yet said surveys placed the ranger as the least favourite class.




Had previously done so; per Crawford this has changed. Hence why they are not pursuing their experiments.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 21, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Had previously done so; per Crawford this has changed. Hence why they are not pursuing their experiments.




And where, exactly, was the second survey? Oh right, they didn't do one.
Just like you said would be insane to not do.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 21, 2018)

Sadras said:


> I'd hazard a guess that many of the same people answering the D&D surveys are the same people on the forums - including those so-called _dozen folks_, so the greater playerbase has generally always been inconsequential. But yes, your point stands that the data gained through a survey is easier to analyse and quantify.




Well, the surveys get hundreds of thousands of individual responses: way more than participate on any forum combined.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 21, 2018)

Yunru said:


> And where, exactly, was the second survey? Oh right, they didn't do one.
> Just like you said would be insane to not do.




They run surveys constantly, and have big data information from D&D Beyond.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 21, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> They run surveys constantly, and have big data information from D&D Beyond.




Yeah I'm sure D&D Beyond is a great way to tell what people are _playing_ given the way it tracks character _builds_.
If I used D&D Beyond, for instance, they'd have at least five characters who are rangers just from my attempts to build a beastmaster that was decent to play, even though I don't intend on playing one.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 21, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Well, there is no "point" insofar as WotC doesn't read the forums, and this discussion will have no effect on the overall game. This is all of us sharing our opinions. Nothing more, nothing less. Disagreement is not trolling, but discussion.



It was not disagreement I was talking about. Disagreeing is perfectly fine.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 21, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> You keeping using this phrase "good enough," but again: "enough" on what metric?



If you are going to pretend you don't know what criticism that is directed at the PHB Beastmaster, I don't understand what you're doing in this thread.





> If the subclass is meeting their metrics, then by definition it is "good enough."



Bollocks. Don't you have an opinion? A critical mind of your own?

Sheesh.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 21, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Yes, voices on the Internet are inconsequential, or more accurately, statiscially irrelevant. WotC stopped participation in forums around the time that they let it be known that their research demonstrated that forum received opinion was often close to the opposite of popular opinion and taste. While they will communicate on mass social media, they aren't making decisions based on those voices.



And telling us this in every thread daring to find faults with WotC's material is exactly what I consider trolling.

Why are you even here?


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 21, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Yeah I'm sure D&D Beyond is a great way to tell what people are _playing_ given the way it tracks character _builds_.
> If I used D&D Beyond, for instance, they'd have at least five characters who are rangers just from my attempts to build a beastmaster that was decent to play, even though I don't intend on playing one.




They have ways of cleaning the data to focus in on PCs actually being played.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 21, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> It was not disagreement I was talking about. Disagreeing is perfectly fine.




Easy to be mistaken about your meaning , as you were responding to folks disagreeing with your opinions.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 21, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> They have ways of cleaning the data to focus in on PCs actually being played.




I see, you must work for them then, no? Surely that's not a baseless assumption?


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 21, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> If you are going to pretend you don't know what criticism that is directed at the PHB Beastmaster, I don't understand what you're doing in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's not that I don't understand the criticism, I disagree with the criticism. I have seen the Beastmaster do well, and I have seen good cases made for the subclass as designed. Just because I disagree with a subjective argument doesn't mean that I don't understand it.

I have, if anything, an overly critical mind with my own opinions. My opinions are different from your opinions, and in the context of this forum set up to exchange ideas, I am sharing them.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 21, 2018)

Yunru said:


> I see, you must work for them then, no? Surely that's not a baseless assumption?




Third parties outside if Beyond or WotC have able to sort thru the publicly available data on Beyond, so it is reasonable to assume that WotC, using their big data resources, can do the same.

Indeed, the wide use of D&D Beyond is one of the big changes needed in the period where they abandoned the Ranger experiment.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 21, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> And telling us this in every thread daring to find faults with WotC's material is exactly what I consider trolling.
> 
> Why are you even here?




I'm here to talk about D&D. WotC is, currently, making very good decisions and I do love their big data approach. It has been delightful to discover that my playstyle coincides with their majoritarian findings.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 21, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> By "dominated" I meant that she laid out tremendous damage, and definitely contributed her fair share when the stakes we're high. She didn't want to put Trinket in danger, however, which goes to show how differently the designers and many Beastmaster inclined players were thinking.
> 
> Now, Crawford just mentioned the Ranger qua Ranger, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Beastmaster remains a steadily popular subclass, even if it is fiddley and convoluted. Narrative over optimization is how people make their characters, in general, and people love a pet story.




So... she did damage based off of her magic bow, magic bowstring, and Hunter's Mark. The fact of the matter is Trinket could have been a bear following the party with no mechanical ties to her class, and she would have been better off. 

And I agree with you, people love a pet story. People might go for the Beastmaster Ranger despite it's flaws. *That does not excuse it's flaws.* I don't see how anyone could argue that. My old car didn't have working A/C, I still drove it and loved that car, that didn't mean I was happy with having no A/C. Just because people care more about the story than the mechanics doesn't mean that they don't care that the mechanics are not working properly. 





Mistwell said:


> Crawford didn't say they would not address the known issues with beastmaster rangers. He said he won't be offering an alternative version of the class. Not the same thing.  And as many people in this thread have mentioned, just a few things like  new fighting style and some new spells can go a huge way to fixing it, without the need for an alternative anything.





Except, RAW, spells are a terrible way to "fix" Rangers, because they get so few of them. And, I don't see how a fighting style can cover enough, even if it literally just rewrote the rule about taking the ranger's action to command the beast. 




Parmandur said:


> Had previously done so; per Crawford this has changed. Hence why they are not pursuing their experiments.





And changed because, suddenly millions of new players joined and decided that the fiddly and unintuitive nature of the Beastmaster was fine? 

I don't get that. Playstyle is one thing, but the problems I see with this class go beyond playstyle, and no one is going to complain about getting a buff to their companion, especially an optional buff.


----------



## lkj (Aug 21, 2018)

Yunru said:


> And where, exactly, was the second survey? Oh right, they didn't do one.
> Just like you said would be insane to not do.




Mearls (and I think Crawford) have said they will be conducting another survey this year (I'm guessing in the fall). They are waiting until they have the results of that survey in hand before they move forward. 

AD


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 21, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Nobody's talking about 4E here, an obviously different game that noone really thought 5E would be directly compatible with.




Hey Cap, if you think this quote means something other than what it plainly says I'd love to know why you think that: " remember when they promised 5e would be modular enough to play any past edition?"

That's the quote I was responding to. 4e is part of "any past edition" right? He clearly is saying he thought they promised it would be modular enough to play 4e, and all the other past editions. 



> In the larger view, do you never tire of being a mouthpiece of WotC? Don't you think they should have to answer for themselves?




It would be great if you stopped personally attacking users here and just responded to our positions rather than the people themselves and what you suspect are our motives.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 21, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> Except, RAW, spells are a terrible way to "fix" Rangers, because they get so few of them. And, I don't see how a fighting style can cover enough, even if it literally just rewrote the rule about taking the ranger's action to command the beast.




The fighting style I had proposed above included several elements. 1) Instead of using an attack action of yours to direct the beast to attack, you can use a bonus action, and 2) If an opponent you are adjacent to strikes your companion, you can re-direct that attack to yourself instead, and if it hits, you have resistance to the damage from that attack.  I'd say that covers a fair bit of ground.

In terms of spells, they can be longer duration, and they can be low level. Resurrecting a beast easily seems pretty helpful, and shouldn't be needed many times per day. 

I think those two additions would be enough. I've seen the beastmaster in play since it was published, and just those two tweaks would be more than enough in my experience to fix the issues with it.


----------



## Satyrn (Aug 21, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> The fighting style I had proposed above included several elements. 1) Instead of using an attack action of yours to direct the beast to attack, you can use a bonus action, and 2) If an opponent you are adjacent to strikes your companion, you can re-direct that attack to yourself instead, and if it hits, you have resistance to the damage from that attack.  I'd say that covers a fair bit of ground.
> 
> In terms of spells, they can be longer duration, and they can be low level. Resurrecting a beast easily seems pretty helpful, and shouldn't be needed many times per day.
> 
> I think those two additions would be enough. I've seen the beastmaster in play since it was published, and just those two tweaks would be more than enough in my experience to fix the issues with it.



As a published solution to be used by various tables I like your fighting style. If I wanted instead to simply give that fighting style's mechanics to the beastmaster as a houserule, would that be reasonable? 

I think I'd like to let the beastmaster still get one of the normal fighting styles. I know I don't want to introduce any fighting styles that the fighter doesn't also get . . . and a mounted paladin probably ought to get access to it, too, if it's a fighting style, and then it'd start feeling like the beastmaster is being left behind again.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 21, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> As a published solution to be used by various tables I like your fighting style. If I wanted instead to simply give that fighting style's mechanics to the beastmaster as a houserule, would that be reasonable?
> 
> I think I'd like to let the beastmaster still get one of the normal fighting styles. I know I don't want to introduce any fighting styles that the fighter doesn't also get . . . and a mounted paladin probably ought to get access to it, too, if it's a fighting style, and then it'd start feeling like the beastmaster is being left behind again.




I think it would be perfectly reasonable to just give it (as a houserule). I also think the Ranger should get access to a Ranger-only feat that grants an additional fighting style.  Possibly as a half-feat with a +1 ability boost. But of course that runs into feats being an optional rule issue.


----------



## Satyrn (Aug 21, 2018)

Excellent.  I'll add that to my notes as the "fix" to be implemented if my table ever actually has these issues with the beastmaster.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 21, 2018)

My "fix" was just taking the scaling health of the UA beastmaster and giving it to the PHB.
Well, and giving them Awaken.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 21, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> So... she did damage based off of her magic bow, magic bowstring, and Hunter's Mark. The fact of the matter is Trinket could have been a bear following the party with no mechanical ties to her class, and she would have been better off.
> 
> And I agree with you, people love a pet story. People might go for the Beastmaster Ranger despite it's flaws. *That does not excuse it's flaws.* I don't see how anyone could argue that. My old car didn't have working A/C, I still drove it and loved that car, that didn't mean I was happy with having no A/C. Just because people care more about the story than the mechanics doesn't mean that they don't care that the mechanics are not working properly.
> 
> ...




Right, she treated Trinket like a friend to be protected above all, rather than an expendable resource. Travis probably would have played a better Beastmaster Ranger on that count. This was the big misstep on the designers part, making a subclass focused on an expendable resource without thinking through people getting attached to their pet. This doesn't mean the subclass doesn't work as intended, but there was a mismatch between design intentions and the playstyle desired by many players. And, even not using the tools as intended, Laura still continued to contribute and have fun, the main metrics the designers are going for.

Millions of new players joined, bring millions of new approaches to playing the game. In addition, D&D Beyond took off int he meantime, and WotC now has solid numerical evidence of what people are doing, not just saying.


----------



## Pauln6 (Aug 21, 2018)

So, if they won't change the core class, would a feat that makes a companion less expendable be one way to go along with beastmaster spells?


----------



## OB1 (Aug 21, 2018)

Pauln6 said:


> So, if they won't change the core class, would a feat that makes a companion less expendable be one way to go along with beastmaster spells?




I was just thinking about that. A Feat that allows you to take large beasts and increases to CR 1/2 beasts with 4 levels of Beastmaster and CR1 beasts with 8 levels. Adds 4x Ranger level hit points to the beast (instead of either or) and either gives a second action to control the beast or allows use of bonus action to attack with the beast seems reasonable. 

Combine with a fighting style that allows you to designate an second beneficiary of hunters mark, a 2nd level Revivify Beast spell, and a 5th level spell that funnels conjure volley or swift quiver like damage (probably slightly above as a nice capstone) through your beast could be a great way to bring the Beast Master in line with a more aggressive beast play style. 

I’d originally tried to do this with all spells but I think a mix of feat, spell and fighting style is more elegant. 

I’m playing a Lizard Folk Ranger Beast master in ToA right now and having a blast, but the above options I would definitely consider (though not necessarily take).


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 21, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> The fighting style I had proposed above included several elements. 1) Instead of using an attack action of yours to direct the beast to attack, you can use a bonus action, and 2) If an opponent you are adjacent to strikes your companion, you can re-direct that attack to yourself instead, and if it hits, you have resistance to the damage from that attack.  I'd say that covers a fair bit of ground.




Those also cover far more than any other Fighting Style. It sounds closer to half of a feat. 

Also, if the Ranger is fine, why would they release this, since it is clearly only useful for the Beastmaster Ranger and no one else? 

Then we get into the issue of choosing the fighting style before you actually get the Beast, meaning that you are essentially losing half of your second level to your third level choice. Unless we add in that the Beastmaster can choose a second style later on, which rewrites the class, which we are avoiding. 



Mistwell said:


> In terms of spells, they can be longer duration, and they can be low level. Resurrecting a beast easily seems pretty helpful, and shouldn't be needed many times per day.
> 
> I think those two additions would be enough. I've seen the beastmaster in play since it was published, and just those two tweaks would be more than enough in my experience to fix the issues with it.




Longer duration and lower level doesn't fully change the fact that rangers only get a VERY limited pool of spells. I mean, between levels 3 and 5 we get 3 and then 4 spells known. Adding a single spell that a Beastmaster will feel required to take will mean they are losing out on a 1/3 of their spell choices otherwise. 

And, to make them both usefully powerful and not stolen by either Druids or Bards dipping, they need to be specific to Rangers and Ranger Animal Companions, which would again be a very strange choice for the company to make if the class does not need any assistance. 

And if it needs assistance, why abandon the rewrite? A stealth rewrite is still a rewrite after all. 



Parmandur said:


> Right, she treated Trinket like a friend to be protected above all, rather than an expendable resource. Travis probably would have played a better Beastmaster Ranger on that count. This was the big misstep on the designers part, making a subclass focused on an expendable resource without thinking through people getting attached to their pet. This doesn't mean the subclass doesn't work as intended, but there was a mismatch between design intentions and the playstyle desired by many players. And, even not using the tools as intended, Laura still continued to contribute and have fun, the main metrics the designers are going for.




So, yet again, the subclass does not do what people would want it to do. But, she had fun playing the class and essentially ignoring her subclass so the subclass is fine?

And if they expected players to play with a conveyor belt of disposable bodies... then I'd say they're holding onto a style of DnD that hasn't been mainstream in over 20 years. That is a massive disconnect with the intended audience, but now more people are more comfortable ignoring their abilities so it is fine? 


Honestly, your logic (if it gets taken and applied to all new content) brings into questions why we even have rules. If we don't need strong rules and well-balanced classes to have fun, then why do we bother having them? Because it provides a good support structure. Just because some people are having fun without those supports does not mean we shouldn't work to make sure those supports are included. 



Parmandur said:


> Millions of new players joined, bring millions of new approaches to playing the game. In addition, D&D Beyond took off int he meantime, and WotC now has solid numerical evidence of what people are doing, not just saying.




Let us not overstate things here. Millions of new people did not add "millions of new approaches to playing the game". We've had millions of players before over the lifetime of Dungeons and Dragons, and we still have only a handful of game playing approaches. I think the biggest number I've ever seen is like "13 player types" or something like that. 

People have not revolutionized roleplaying games that much, that isn't how entertainment works.


----------



## OB1 (Aug 21, 2018)

[MENTION=6801228]Chaosmancer[/MENTION] just because WotC doesn’t want to take the disruptive step of putting out a revision to a class doesn’t mean they can’t look at other ways to increase satisfaction levels for different play styles. Feats, fighting styles, and spells all offer ways to give players more choice without the confusion of multiple versions of the class. 

It will be tough having to give up a spell or a feat or a fighting style, but you can choose to do it or not. Either it’s worth the opportunity cost to you or not. Why is that a bad approach?


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 21, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> Those also cover far more than any other Fighting Style. It sounds closer to half of a feat.
> 
> Also, if the Ranger is fine, why would they release this, since it is clearly only useful for the Beastmaster Ranger and no one else?
> 
> ...




Millions of new points of view, at any rate. And WotC has made it clear that their goals with balance are about participation and felt satisfaction, as much as anything. The optimal playstyle for the Beastmaster is, deceptively, ruthless and Gygaxian, but if people are still playing it over options that would suit their play better and having fun...then, yeah, mission accomplished. I agree that they made a significant miscalculation in designing a pet subclass that way, but it does work well if used as intended. As such, I wouldn't be surprised to see a new Ranger subclass evebtually that better fits the desired playstyle over the Beastmaster. Particularly if the new Summoning rules pan out, WotC can let players eat their cake and have it, too (use the animal companion to be powerful in combat, without it being expendable).


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 22, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> Those also cover far more than any other Fighting Style. It sounds closer to half of a feat.
> 
> Also, if the Ranger is fine, why would they release this, since it is clearly only useful for the Beastmaster Ranger and no one else?




I didn't say the Beastmaster Ranger is fine (though I do think the other subclasses are fine for the Ranger). I've said throughout the thread I think it could use some additional elements, but that I think they could be done without an alternative class or errata, but simply by publishing some additional options for the existing class. Like those I mentioned. 



> Then we get into the issue of choosing the fighting style before you actually get the Beast, meaning that you are essentially losing half of your second level to your third level choice. Unless we add in that the Beastmaster can choose a second style later on, which rewrites the class, which we are avoiding.




The actual proposal I wrote (which I thought you read, as this was a summary of an earlier discussion in this thread) involved just aiding any allied creature of the beast sub-type. This would help with befriended animals found using the skill, or animals found using a variety of spells, or other animals in the party like a familiar. So even if you choose this fighting style and decide later to not choose beastmaster, it still has interesting utility. 



> Longer duration and lower level doesn't fully change the fact that rangers only get a VERY limited pool of spells. I mean, between levels 3 and 5 we get 3 and then 4 spells known. Adding a single spell that a Beastmaster will feel required to take will mean they are losing out on a 1/3 of their spell choices otherwise.




Yes. And yet, it still helps. I think I am OK with trading slightly less magic to be better with beast mastery. Seems like a fair trade off to me. And if you are not OK with it, then just focus more on spells. 



> And, to make them both usefully powerful and not stolen by either Druids or Bards dipping, they need to be specific to Rangers and Ranger Animal Companions, which would again be a very strange choice for the company to make if the class does not need any assistance.




The class does need assistance for those who do not view the beast as either mostly non-combat, or more disposable. I think you've mistaken my position for someone else's position. 



> And if it needs assistance, why abandon the rewrite? A stealth rewrite is still a rewrite after all.




It's not a stealth re-write. It's additional options to help those who want to play a beast master with a more aggressive beast, or a less disposable beast.  You don't have to take these additional options at all, and a lot of people won't because they don't play the beastmaster that way (likely either keeping the beast out of combat most of the time, or treating the beast as more disposable and replaceable). 



> And if they expected players to play with a conveyor belt of disposable bodies... then I'd say they're holding onto a style of DnD that hasn't been mainstream in over 20 years. That is a massive disconnect with the intended audience...




Funny, I don't hear that complaint about the Champion fighter which is doing the same thing. As this edition has brought in a huge number of new players who have never played the game before, it's the new mainstream. It's what I was arguing before much earlier in this thread - I think a lot of newer players are more comfortable replacing the beast often, or keeping the beast mostly out of combat.


----------



## cbwjm (Aug 22, 2018)

I actually think it would be kind of funny for the ranger to have a new beast companion every session because they lost it the session before. The image of the beastmaster constantly getting exasperated with having to constantly replace their pet is a rather comical one.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 22, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Easy to be mistaken about your meaning , as you were responding to folks disagreeing with your opinions.



Yeah, but see, I wasn't talking about disagreeing, so let's focus on what I did talk about, eh?


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 22, 2018)

Yunru said:


> I see, you must work for them then, no?



It sure does seem like he's working for them...


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 22, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> It's not that I don't understand the criticism, I disagree with the criticism. I have seen the Beastmaster do well, and I have seen good cases made for the subclass as designed. Just because I disagree with a subjective argument doesn't mean that I don't understand it.
> 
> I have, if anything, an overly critical mind with my own opinions. My opinions are different from your opinions, and in the context of this forum set up to exchange ideas, I am sharing them.



Good. 

So you do have opinions. Great!

Now, let us discuss them, instead of hiding behind WotC's decisions.

By that I mean that if you're prepared to stand by YOUR opinion that the Beastmaster is great, that's a good basis for further discussion.

What's entirely useless OTOH is saying the class is great because WotC's numbers says it is, or because WotC needs the issue to go away. 

If you truly think you can defend the PHB Beastmaster using your own words and ideas, that would be interesting. We should probably start a new thread for that.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 22, 2018)

lkj said:


> They are waiting until they have the results of that survey in hand before they move forward.



In my opinion, they don't get enough flak for this waiting game.

Folks, waiting means doing nothing, giving us nothing. There's nothing positive about it. It mostly means WotC can keep staff costs down.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 22, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I think those two additions would be enough.



I think we agree the UA Ranger overcompensated.

We also agree the Ranger *can* be fixed. It's not an insurmountable problem (unless WotC gets hung up about treating the PHB like holy writ that may never be changed).

The issue isn't that a fix can't be found.

The issue is that the full value isn't reached until the fix is published in an official hardback. 

I've lost track of exactly what your tweak does, but I trust your judgement that it would indeed negate the worst aspects of the PHB Beastmaster. 

I would love for WotC to officially include it in the game, ideally by errataing the PHB.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 22, 2018)

Yunru said:


> And yet said surveys placed the ranger as the least favourite class.




What surveys?  The last class popularity survey was done years ago, and, even then the Ranger wasn't the least popular class.  The druid was:  http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/dd-survey-results-summary


----------



## Yunru (Aug 22, 2018)

Hussar said:


> What surveys?  The last class popularity survey was done years ago, and, even then the Ranger wasn't the least popular class.  The druid was:  http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/dd-survey-results-summary




The one they quote in the revised ranger UA.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 22, 2018)

OB1 said:


> [MENTION=6801228]Chaosmancer[/MENTION] just because WotC doesn’t want to take the disruptive step of putting out a revision to a class doesn’t mean they can’t look at other ways to increase satisfaction levels for different play styles. Feats, fighting styles, and spells all offer ways to give players more choice without the confusion of multiple versions of the class.
> 
> It will be tough having to give up a spell or a feat or a fighting style, but you can choose to do it or not. Either it’s worth the opportunity cost to you or not. Why is that a bad approach?





I'm not sure how disruptive a rewrite would be, after all, I don't think it has been disruptive for the UA to exist, nor the numerous homebrew ranger options. 

Sure, getting an "official" new class would be different in tone, but I don't think it would necessarily be terribly disruptive. 


As for why some of those options are bad, Fighting Styles are too early and aren't designed to handle that much mechanical wieght. Spells are already a precious resource and highly limited for low level rangers especially (the most important levels since the majority of people will play them). Feats are optional rules, but they are the best candidates for this. However, it would by necessity be a Beastmaster exclusive feat to be robust enough to alter the class. We only just recently got racial feats and I don't think we are seeing Class feats coming down the pipe and if we did they would still be broader than a subclass feat which is what this would end up being if it was to be useful enough.  

And then, depending on what changes you make exactly, it is going to be a feat, costing resources, that essentially errata's the rules for the Beastmaster, which would immediately raise the question of why not just alter the class publicly instead of trying to do it sneakily and costing us resources. 




Mistwell said:


> I didn't say the Beastmaster Ranger is fine (though I do think the other subclasses are fine for the Ranger). I've said throughout the thread I think it could use some additional elements, but that I think they could be done without an alternative class or errata, but simply by publishing some additional options for the existing class. Like those I mentioned.




Guess I just feel like if you are going to change it, change it. Don't see a whole lot of point in "only kind of changing it". 





Mistwell said:


> The actual proposal I wrote (which I thought you read, as this was a summary of an earlier discussion in this thread) involved just aiding any allied creature of the beast sub-type. This would help with befriended animals found using the skill, or animals found using a variety of spells, or other animals in the party like a familiar. So even if you choose this fighting style and decide later to not choose beastmaster, it still has interesting utility.




Very few spells actually get beasts, remember most of the conjuring spells bring forth Fey Spirits that simply look like beasts. This would be a hard-line reading of RAW but it is important, same with familiars in most cases. 

So really, it is a fighting style that assists you if you are the type to allow random wild animals to follow and fight for the party, or if you have a Beastmaster Ranger. I don't know about your table obviously, but at mine most wild animals don't end up getting befriended by the party and fighting alongside them. 





Mistwell said:


> The class does need assistance for those who do not view the beast as either mostly non-combat, or more disposable. I think you've mistaken my position for someone else's position.
> 
> It's not a stealth re-write. It's additional options to help those who want to play a beast master with a more aggressive beast, or a less disposable beast.  You don't have to take these additional options at all, and a lot of people won't because they don't play the beastmaster that way (likely either keeping the beast out of combat most of the time, or treating the beast as more disposable and replaceable).




I'm wondering about WoTC's position. They are the people who would publish it after all. Their position seems to be that everything is fine with the Ranger, in which case why would they publish spells and feats designed specifically to fix the Beastmaster? 

And, since the spells and feats would likely make the Beast more powerful and therefore better suited to combats it is already going to get involved in (remember, Vex was only able to keep Trinket fully out of combat due to a unique magic item) even people who don't want the companions in combat are going to want them, as a precaution. At least, that is my perspective on it. 




Mistwell said:


> Funny, I don't hear that complaint about the Champion fighter which is doing the same thing. As this edition has brought in a huge number of new players who have never played the game before, it's the new mainstream. It's what I was arguing before much earlier in this thread - I think a lot of newer players are more comfortable replacing the beast often, or keeping the beast mostly out of combat.




Um.... that is because the Champion fighter doesn't have a mechanic for hiring henchmen? 

I'm kind of confused what you think I was talking about if you think the Champion Fighter needs to get involved.As I understand there was a large tradition of torch-bearers, men-at-arms, and other low level henchman types getting hired by players in 1e or 2e and sometimes even used as minesweepers for dungeon traps. Hence why I was comparing the disposable beast with that style of play. Champion Fighter has absolutely zero mechanical support for that.


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Aug 22, 2018)

I think WotC feels like every UA for the ranger has been disruptive (although I think they bear much of the blame for that).  Certainly what I like to call "the ranger identity crisis" where everyone agreed on a theme and pretty much nothing else would not have been as big a thing without the UA's.  On top of that, from his other comments (like his response to what is your least favorite class?), it sounds like he is being cyberstalked by creepy ranger fans (and please don't embarrass yourself by trying to defend it on this forum, especially if you have started up more than 5 ranger threads).  If you know any of them, please feel free to thank them for their part in killing any ranger reform.


----------



## Satyrn (Aug 22, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> I actually think it would be kind of funny for the ranger to have a new beast companion every session because they lost it the session before. The image of the beastmaster constantly getting exasperated with having to constantly replace their pet is a rather comical one.




And now I want to play a beastmaster.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Aug 22, 2018)

MechaTarrasque said:


> I think WotC feels like every UA for the ranger has been disruptive (although I think they bear much of the blame for that).  Certainly what I like to call "the ranger identity crisis" where everyone agreed on a theme and pretty much nothing else would not have been as big a thing without the UA's.  On top of that, from his other comments (like his response to what is your least favorite class?), it sounds like he is being cyberstalked by creepy ranger fans (and please don't embarrass yourself by trying to defend it on this forum, especially if you have started up more than 5 ranger threads).  If you know any of them, please feel free to thank them for their part in killing any ranger reform.




Without the UAs the Ranger Identity Crisis may not have been as big, but it was always there.

I mean It was always easier to build a Rogue that was great at Naturey stuff regardless of Terrain. Which would leave me wondering why my Ranger was only an expert in the Forest but the Rogue could be the expert anywhere. The Scout Rogue compounded it further for me.

UAs may have muddied the water, but the ranger mechanics themselves kept it from being crystal clear in the first place.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 22, 2018)

The ranger identity crisis was a thing since they started on 5e. They just threw stuff at the wall and took the most liked.

Which says a lot.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 22, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> I think we agree the UA Ranger overcompensated.
> 
> We also agree the Ranger *can* be fixed. It's not an insurmountable problem (unless WotC gets hung up about treating the PHB like holy writ that may never be changed).
> 
> ...




The entire point of my fix is that it ISN'T errata and is just additional options to the existing class, in the form of an additional fighting style and some additional spells. None of my fix changes anything in the existing PHB, it's just ordinary stuff that can go into a book like Xanathar's Guide.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 22, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> Very few spells actually get beasts, remember most of the conjuring spells bring forth Fey Spirits that simply look like beasts. This would be a hard-line reading of RAW but it is important, same with familiars in most cases.




We're going in circles here. We already went over, in this thread, the series of spells that help you gain animal friends. There are plenty of them. For example off the top of my head from the Ranger spell list: Animal Friendship, Beast Bond, Speak With Animals, Animal Messenger, Beast Sense. If your Beastmaster Ranger is not interacting with a lot of animals, then that's their right of course, but it sure isn't much in line with the entire theme of that class and many abilities and spells they're given. 



> So really, it is a fighting style that assists you if you are the type to allow random wild animals to follow and fight for the party, or if you have a Beastmaster Ranger. I don't know about your table obviously, but at mine most wild animals don't end up getting befriended by the party and fighting alongside them.




See above. Plus horses, familiars, guard dogs, etc..





> I'm wondering about WoTC's position. They are the people who would publish it after all. Their position seems to be that everything is fine with the Ranger, in which case why would they publish spells and feats designed specifically to fix the Beastmaster?




The Ranger as a class IS fine. The issues seem to be with one sub-class. I don't think anyone has spoken to that sub-class lately but if they have I'd love to see it.



> Um.... that is because the Champion fighter doesn't have a mechanic for hiring henchmen?
> 
> I'm kind of confused what you think I was talking about if you think the Champion Fighter needs to get involved.As I understand there was a large tradition of torch-bearers, men-at-arms, and other low level henchman types getting hired by players in 1e or 2e and sometimes even used as minesweepers for dungeon traps. Hence why I was comparing the disposable beast with that style of play. Champion Fighter has absolutely zero mechanical support for that.




You're missing my point then. I was not speaking to the "disposable man at arms" topic. I was speaking to the "guy who swings his sword every round" topic. The Champion Fighter is pretty similar to an old school fighter class in that respect.


----------



## OB1 (Aug 22, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> And now I want to play a beastmaster.




This thread actually inspired me to play a Beastmaster in the Tomb of Annihilation campaign we just started. My Lizardfolk Ranger has changed companions three times and may or may not be eating old companions. He also constantly asks his party members if he can eat them if they die. 

So far he has not had any takers.


----------



## Satyrn (Aug 22, 2018)

OB1 said:


> This thread actually inspired me to play a Beastmaster in the Tomb of Annihilation campaign we just started. My Lizardfolk Ranger has changed companions three times and may or may not be eating old companions. He also constantly asks his party members if he can eat them if they die.
> 
> So far he has not had any takers.




I love it!

This tempts me to multiclass my halfling druid into a beastmaster who may or may not be eating his companions when wildshaped into a giant python


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 22, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Yeah, but see, I wasn't talking about disagreeing, so let's focus on what I did talk about, eh?




Well, that's what you were responding to, forgive my error.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 22, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> It sure does seem like he's working for them...




Nah, man, that's backwards: they work for me. They make D&D for me,and I pay them money.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 22, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Good.
> 
> So you do have opinions. Great!
> 
> ...




It doesn't really need to be "defended," it is what it is, and folks either like it or don't like it.

WotC has experimented with alternative options,but those experiments didn't do what they wanted, and were found to be unnecessary for customers (on a statistically meaningful level). So, they've refocused on what their customers want. Good for them.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 22, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> It doesn't really need to be "defended," it is what it is, and folks either like it or don't like it.
> 
> WotC has experimented with alternative options,but those experiments didn't do what they wanted, and were found to be unnecessary for customers (on a statistically meaningful level). So, they've refocused on what their customers want. Good for them.



You still try to wriggle out of having an opinion of your own.

Just stating (over and over) how great everything is because WotC says so, is entirely useless, so you telling us what you yourself think  would be a definite improvement.


----------



## lkj (Aug 22, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> In my opinion, they don't get enough flak for this waiting game.
> 
> Folks, waiting means doing nothing, giving us nothing. There's nothing positive about it. It mostly means WotC can keep staff costs down.




I very much doubt they are doing nothing. I suspect they are doing an awful lot. They just aren't doing the things that you would like them to be doing in the order that you would like them to be doing it.  Completely understandable for you to complain about that. But-- while I'm quite interested in what they do, if anything, with the ranger-- I can't say it's that hard to see why it's not a top priority.

And, yes, I know you disagree. That's fine. 

AD


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 23, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> You still try to wriggle out of having an opinion of your own.
> 
> Just stating (over and over) how great everything is because WotC says so, is entirely useless, so you telling us what you yourself think  would be a definite improvement.




I'm not sure what is unclear about this, so my apologies: that is my opinion. I think the Beastmaster is fine, but that is immaterial to the topic of "is WotC making good decisions with their approach, such as with moving away from the revised Ranger?" And in my opinion, they are making good, customer focused decisions. This is different from your opinion, but that doesn't mean it isn't really my opinion.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 23, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> In my opinion, they don't get enough flak for this waiting game.
> 
> Folks, waiting means doing nothing, giving us nothing. There's nothing positive about it. It mostly means WotC can keep staff costs down.




People tend not to throw flak when they are happy with the direction of things.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 23, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> We're going in circles here. We already went over, in this thread, the series of spells that help you gain animal friends. There are plenty of them. For example off the top of my head from the Ranger spell list: Animal Friendship, Beast Bond, Speak With Animals, Animal Messenger, Beast Sense. If your Beastmaster Ranger is not interacting with a lot of animals, then that's their right of course, but it sure isn't much in line with the entire theme of that class and many abilities and spells they're given.
> 
> See above. Plus horses, familiars, guard dogs, etc..




So, I already mentioned familiars aren't beasts 99% of the time (1% is GM Fiat for bonding with mundane beasts). They are Fey, Fiend of Celestial spirits from the spell explicitly, and abberations, dragons, ect from most of the MM optional rules. So why you included them with the list of Guard Dogs and Horses I won't understand. 

Also, horses, other that someone really trying to a cavalry build, how often do the mundane horses the party buys to travel with involved in the combats you run? For me, pretty much never because they aren't a signifigant factor and they would clutter the field. Also, never seen a player buy a guard dog, pretty much ever. 


And, I'm just going to go down those spells you listed, real quick. 

Beast Sense - Allows you to see through the beast's eyes. Says nothing about the beast sticking around after the spell, and does not create a beast, so you already need a beast around to even use this spell. Why is that important? Because you said "the fighting style is useful with all beasts the party has with them" and I said "The party having beasts follow them around isn't all that common" Replying with, "here is a spell people use when they have beasts following them around" doesn't actually answer the initial question. 

Animal Messenger - Turns an animal into a carrier pigeon. Actually, this one specifies the beast only returns if the message fails to deliver (and then only to where you cast it so if you've since left, tough luck), so you lose whichever beast you used to cast this spell. Luckily you can take any beast that happens to be nearby, but this doesn't add a beast to the party roster in any way. 

Speak With Animals - Does what is says on the box. Let's you talk to animals. Now, this could be used to increase your chances of getting an animal to join the party for an adventure. But, that requires effort to be put forth by the caster. Generally though, this spell is used to gather information, allowing you to know what the animals have seen or know. 

Animal Friendship - Let's the beast no you mean it no harm, and charms it for 24 hrs. See, one thing that is a minor pet peeve of mine is the charm effect, because it is really limited compared to what a lot of my players think it should do. Charm gives you advantage on social checks and prevents the charmed target from attacking you. So you have advantage for 24 hours on convincing the beast to follow you, and it won't attack you, but that doesn't mean it will fight for you or that it will follow you into an obviously dangerous area like an undead infested tomb or a dangerous creatures lair. You aren't mind controlling it after all, just really persuasive. 

Beast Bond - Telepathic link that allows you to speak with a beast that is friendly or charmed. Also gives it advantage on attacks on enemies adjacent to you. Hadn't read this one in Xanathar's yet, but exactly like Beast Sense, this requires a beast to already be present in the game to have any effect. 


So, from your list of spells to gain animal friends... 3 of the five require you to already have an animal friend and do nothing to help you get an animal friend. Two of them make you more likely to convince an animal to be your friend. 


Now, I'm not saying a ranger can't go out every day, charm a badger or a squirrel or a hawk, make some Animal Handling checks, get it's undying loyalty to follow him around and fight for him, and command an entire menagerie of beasts. Sure, that could happen. I'm saying it pretty much never does happen. You might get two animals following the party around, not counting the horses the party rides. And, a large percentage of the time, let's say 85% those animals are not fit for combat, nor will the player want them involved in combat. So, your fighting style which allows you to command a beast as a bonus action and take damage for that beast if you are nearby, isn't exactly getting a lot of usage unless a player specifically wants a combat beast and therefore they likely took the beastmaster subclass. 

So, your fighting style is, like I said before, really only useful for a beastmaster, unless you've got a party that has a large number of wild animals following them around for some strange reason. Because getting beasts in the party composition is A) difficult by RAW and B) kind of pointless by mid-levels since most of them are incredibly weak and the party can do all the same things with their other abilities that they could have done by spending weeks of game time training a beast. 






Mistwell said:


> You're missing my point then. I was not speaking to the "disposable man at arms" topic. I was speaking to the "guy who swings his sword every round" topic. The Champion Fighter is pretty similar to an old school fighter class in that respect.




Well, that is a style of play that is more common. I wasn't saying "Beastmaster is old school" I was saying that if the idea was a disposable wave of bodies that is a play style that hasn't been well received in the community for a very long time. 

If you want to throw up other random comparisons that have nothing to do with what we are talking about, be my guest, but don't expect it to change anyone's minds on the topic at hand.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 23, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> So, I already mentioned familiars aren't beasts 99% of the time (1% is GM Fiat for bonding with mundane beasts). They are Fey, Fiend of Celestial spirits from the spell explicitly, and abberations, dragons, ect from most of the MM optional rules. So why you included them with the list of Guard Dogs and Horses I won't understand.
> 
> Also, horses, other that someone really trying to a cavalry build, how often do the mundane horses the party buys to travel with involved in the combats you run? For me, pretty much never because they aren't a signifigant factor and they would clutter the field. Also, never seen a player buy a guard dog, pretty much ever.
> 
> ...




I've changed several people's minds already in this very thread. The one you mostly have not read. It's OK if I don't change your mind.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 23, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> In my opinion, they don't get enough flak for this waiting game.




I think you and they simply operate on different timescales.  It seems like this is a big issue for *your* enjoyment, so you feel a lot of pain over it.  I'm not sure all that many others feel this pain as acutely as you - and that means the sense of urgency you feel may not be a major concern to them.  



> Folks, waiting means doing nothing, giving us nothing. There's nothing positive about it.




There's not much negative about it, either.  Waiting does not make things worse.  However, waiting may help them avoid the negatives that come with moving too fast, or reacting to a vocal minority who don't represent the bulk of their customers.



> It mostly means WotC can keep staff costs down.




Yes, well, it isn't like the D&D department is a non-profit.  Yes, they want to keep costs down.  That's not a surprise, or a notable critique. That's a general precept of business - keep a large enough bunch of customers satisfied while keeping costs down.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 23, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> You still try to wriggle out of having an opinion of your own.
> 
> Just stating (over and over) how great everything is because WotC says so, is entirely useless, so you telling us what you yourself think  would be a definite improvement.




Ok. 

The revised hunter and beast master are both fine. They play well and I found no problems with them. 

If the beast dying is such an issue why not just give it death saved?  Poof. Problem solved and 100% RAW to boot.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 23, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I've changed several people's minds already in this very thread. The one you mostly have not read. It's OK if I don't change your mind.




Wow, thanks for implying I have not read this thread, considering I was giving (to the best of my ability) constructive criticism of potential spells a few pages ago for OB1 and I have yet to attack anyone unlike other people on this thread. Look, if you are going to attack people out of the blue, could you at least be more original about it? The "I bet you didn't even read it" argument is way too overdone and impossible to prove one way or the other.  

 I apologize for the sarcasm, but I seriously don't understand why you had to twist my point about the old style of conveyor belt meat grinders being a fairly fringe style at best these days into a discussion on Champion Fighter's simple combat style. It'd be as nonsensical as bringing up the advances in Cleric and support playstyles with the addition of bonus/minor action abilities. True, but completely irrelevant to the discussion.  


You want to defend you fighting style design and the assumptions you are making about party composition? Do it. But, if you need to do better than just listing spells that have beast or animal in the name and do nothing to mechanically support your point if you are going to convince me. Don't expect you can attack me and try to deflect the conversation, while not responding to the criticism I supplied, like I'm not going to notice. That just makes it look like you've got no rebuttal. 




Hussar said:


> Ok.
> 
> The revised hunter and beast master are both fine. They play well and I found no problems with them.
> 
> If the beast dying is such an issue why not just give it death saved?  Poof. Problem solved and 100% RAW to boot.




Not sure we can say "problem solved" but yeah, that definitely helps a lot to prevent the companion's death. If they are dropping every fight though, not finally dying isn't actually solving the real issue.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 23, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> Wow, thanks for implying I have not read this thread




I didn't imply it I said it. And it was accurate, as we were discussing topics which had already been discussed in the thread earlier, and you were asking for a list that had already been listed and discussed earlier. Why are you trying to imply or say you had read it? I was not attacking you, I was making an accurate observation that we were re-treading old ground.



> I apologize for the sarcasm, but I seriously don't understand why you had to twist my point about the old style of conveyor belt meat grinders being a fairly fringe style at best these days into a discussion on Champion Fighter's simple combat style. It'd be as nonsensical as bringing up the advances in Cleric and support playstyles with the addition of bonus/minor action abilities. True, but completely irrelevant to the discussion.




Because you're not addressing my point. My point was there were several old school elements in this game already which many people were comfortable with, such as the Champions call-back to 1e fighters. I believe there are people who also are comfortable with the old school style of treating animal companions as disposable as well. Others in this thread have related they are fine with that style too. That's why I mentioned the Champion though - purely as yet another old school element that was well received by some. It's as relevant as any other old school element - which is the topic YOU raised, not me. 



> You want to defend you fighting style design and the assumptions you are making about party composition? Do it. But, if you need to do better than just listing spells that have beast or animal in the name and do nothing to mechanically support your point if you are going to convince me.




I did. You're late to the conversation and apparently loath to go back and look at what was written about it and demanding I make the argument a second time? If it's something that interests you then spend the time to read the thread, but stop demanding that everyone has to revolve around where you are at this moment in the thread.  But right now I am not inclined to respond to even further details of your critique since you don't appear to be wanting a discussion in good faith.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 23, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> /snip
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If they are dropping every fight, then there's something very wrong beyond the mechanics of the revised beast master.  The revised BM's companion, at low levels, has probably pretty close to the HP of a PC and even at higher levels, isn't that far off.  Unless the DM is being a total dick and directing every single attack at the companion every single fight, the companion shouldn't be dropping below zero any more than pretty much any other PC.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 23, 2018)

@_*Hussar*_, your quote is at the bottom. Sorry for the long read, but I prefer multi-quoting to making multiple posts. 



Mistwell said:


> I didn't imply it I said it. And it was accurate, as we were discussing topics which had already been discussed in the thread earlier, and you were asking for a list that had already been listed and discussed earlier. Why are you trying to imply or say you had read it? I was not attacking you, I was making an accurate observation that we were re-treading old ground.




I never asked for a list. I stated that there are very few spells that actually allow you to add beasts to your party, because most spells that summon actually create fey. You decided to list a bunch of spells to prove me wrong, the majority of which did not add a beast to the party. 

Now, I'll grant, I've been in this thread for over a week and it stretches nearly 400 posts, we might have talked about how conjure animals creates fey before and I might have forgotten. I don't have a steel-trap mind to remember an entire piecemeal conversation over multiple days. But I'm pretty sure we didn't discuss that, and your list was mostly variously utility spells you can use with beasts, which we may have discussed under a completely different context. 

And you know, sometimes people talk about things more than once, when there are multiple angles to consider something from. However, just because we revisit a point, or someone doesn't remember something from days ago, doesn't mean they are not reading the thread. That is an insulting leap in logic to make. 






Mistwell said:


> Because you're not addressing my point. My point was there were several old school elements in this game already which many people were comfortable with, such as the Champions call-back to 1e fighters. I believe there are people who also are comfortable with the old school style of treating animal companions as disposable as well. Others in this thread have related they are fine with that style too. That's why I mentioned the Champion though - purely as yet another old school element that was well received by some. It's as relevant as any other old school element - which is the topic YOU raised, not me.




Okay, see now I can see your logic, but you never stated that. You just equated Champions to what I was talking about with no context. 

Now that I have an actual point to this, yeah, some people are fine with disposable beasts. And some people like older styles of play, but it isn't a majority in most cases. For example, running the Tomb of Horrors as it was originally intended is considered bad form by some people, especially if the party is unaware of what they are getting into, because it is full of "Gotcha" traps that are anti-thetical to most people's style in this day and age. This is important when considering whether or not the designers intended this effect, because intending the major "pet-class" to be played in a style that is seen as unpopular and unfun for some of the biggest proponents of pet-classes, would seem to be an almost comically bad mistake. It would be as though they designed sub-system for quicker combats and utilized THACO, it almost defeats the very purpose of the game element you are designing, especially since it has been out of favor for so long. 

And, I would argue that the Champions "I swing my sword" style of combat isn't necessarily old school in the same way that those out-dated styles are. Many modern games use similarly simple combat options, though with different dice usually, so it has never "gone out of style" so to speak, to 'swing my sword' or 'shoot my gun' over and over again in combat.  

That is a major difference to my eyes, between a style that was created with the original game but still utilized, and a style that has been mostly abandoned by the player base. 



Mistwell said:


> I did. You're late to the conversation and apparently loath to go back and look at what was written about it and demanding I make the argument a second time? If it's something that interests you then spend the time to read the thread, but stop demanding that everyone has to revolve around where you are at this moment in the thread.  But right now I am not inclined to respond to even further details of your critique since you don't appear to be wanting a discussion in good faith.




Okay, I'll go digging back through some few hundred posts. 

So, assuming you didn't talk about your fighting style before posting the rules for it, I finally found your first post on it in post #207 (by my counter which I think is different for everyone) on August 13th. Where you said 



Mistwell said:


> I just realized in addition to adding new spells to help the beastmaster (though I was wrong earlier in suggesting a cantrip - they get no cantrips), you could also add a Fighting Style. Something like "Companion Fighting: Any time you are fighting the same foe as your animal companion, you can use a bonus action to grant your companion an attack action; when you are adjacent to either your animal companion or a foe when that foe attacks your animal companion, you may use your reaction to cause the foe to strike at you instead, and if the attack hits, you have resistance to the damage from that attack."




Now, I never responded to this, it was cbwjm who responded asking the question which I later reiterated, involving the issue of gaining the Fighting Style before the sub-class. You responded with 



Mistwell said:


> Yes, they'd get it before the subclass. If there are issues with the earlier levels, you could just as easily change it from "animal companion" to "allied creature of the beast sub-type".  That would allow some additional flexibility with animals you're helping, animal friends you've purchased or made through a skill check or spell, perhaps even of aid for a Paladin's mount or a Cavaliers, and maybe some familiars?




And, again, I never responded to this. It happened right before OB1 started posting their spells and asking for my feedback, and I guess I figured cbwjm would respond. Now, you would occasionally mention "spells and fighting styles" as a soltution to the beastmaster, but none of those got into specifics. The next specific time you mention your Fighting Style is in Post #336 on the 21st when you were responding to my assertion that spells and fighting styles aren't a good solution, partially because Fighting Styles don't cover enough mechanical space to "fix" the Beastmaster. 

Your response here 


Mistwell said:


> The fighting style I had proposed above included several elements. 1) Instead of using an attack action of yours to direct the beast to attack, you can use a bonus action, and 2) If an opponent you are adjacent to strikes your companion, you can re-direct that attack to yourself instead, and if it hits, you have resistance to the damage from that attack.  I'd say that covers a fair bit of ground.




So, just to keep the timeline straight (hey, you asked me to go back and revisit it) I got involved with talking about your fighting style 129 posts and eight days after you first brought it up (during those 8 days, it was essentially never talked about) 


And actually, I'm glad you had me go back and look at these posts, because it seems you edited the fighting style without letting anyone know, since "Any time you are fighting the same foe as your animal companion, you can use a bonus action to grant your companion an attack action" is fairly substantially different from "Instead of using an attack action of yours to direct the beast to attack, you can use a bonus action" 

In you original fighting style it seems the Ranger and the Companion would need to targeting the same enemy to get the bonus action attack. That is a pretty signifigant restriction, especially if the Ranger is a melee fighter who may be unable to reach the same enemies as their companion. I prefer the second version if I had to choose between the two, obviously. 

Now, you did mention way back when about expanding it to all beasts with the party in your reply to cbwjm. But I never got in on that discussion, and it never went further than you stating it. So, yesterday, when I began to question how often a party may get beasts, especially since almost no spells actually cause beasts to join the party, *it was the first time anyone had asked that*. 

You should hopefully remember that part of the conversation though, so I won't recap. 

Yeah, I'm glad you convinced me to go back over the thread and see that not only were you rude in your accusations towards me, you were dead wrong about this being ground we had already covered. Sure, you mentioned your fighting style ten days ago, but no one actually did any work with seeing how it would fare, or how your proposed addition of "all the beasts with the party" would pan out. 

So, unless there are some posts you deleted in this thread, I think I am fully caught up and would like to return to the conversation, instead of this smoke and mirrors crap of baseless accusations.


Just to gather all my thoughts on your fighting style in one place, it would be a weird fix. You would gain the ability to command beasts at second level using your bonus action, for any beast (because the Urchin has a pet mouse I suppose). I am curious if it allows you a bonus action for one friendly beast or if that bonus action could cause a cascade of attacks, I'd assume it is only a single, but you haven't rewritten it to include the "any allied beast" language. Then, you get your subclass and become a "Beastmaster" able to command a single beast only with your action... Which is signifigantly worse than the ability you already have at second level. This of course would just highlight the problem with the Beastmaster's currently written version

We also still have the situation of how few beasts are actually involved with the standard party, and how many of those beasts the players would even want to involve in the combat, because the fewer that number, the less useful your fighting style becomes until it is simply a rewrite to the Beastmaster that costs the beastmaster their additional point of AC or their +2 accuracy with bows, both of which are a significant resource loss since this is really a better version of the Beastmaster's lv 3 ability and can be seen as "neccesary" to take. 

Also, we can still discuss those spells if you would like, since you have still refused to respond to my critique of your list of spells which add beasts to the party, by RAW.





Hussar said:


> If they are dropping every fight, then there's something very wrong beyond the mechanics of the revised beast master.  The revised BM's companion, at low levels, has probably pretty close to the HP of a PC and even at higher levels, isn't that far off.  Unless the DM is being a total dick and directing every single attack at the companion every single fight, the companion shouldn't be dropping below zero any more than pretty much any other PC.




I agree. I thought you were referring to death saves as a fix for the PHB Beastmaster. Still similar AC, but they tend to have less HP depending on the beast (Revised Ranger relies more on the Beasts Con and HD, so it fluctuates more). By 5th level 20 hp is very little and I could see them dropping often if they are in the thick of it. Worse if there are AOE save for half attacks going off.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 24, 2018)

Oh, no, I'm referring to the Revised Ranger.  Always.  Because, well, that's  the point isn't it?  The PHB Beastmaster is very unpopular and not very good.  So, they gave us the Revised Beastmaster and the problem is resolved.  I'm still, frankly, baffled why this is even a conversation.

The PHB Beastmaster SUCKS!

Ok, here's the revised Beastmaster and it works.

It's not published between two hard covers!!! It doesn't count!!!

... ummm... we ... err... but we fixed... uh...

WotC sucks and anyone who defends them is a blind apologist!!!

... err.... but... it's fixed... we gave you what you wanted... errr

On and on and on, round and round.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 24, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> Just to gather all my thoughts on your fighting style in one place, it would be a weird fix. You would gain the ability to command beasts at second level using your bonus action, for any beast (because the Urchin has a pet mouse I suppose). I am curious if it allows you a bonus action for one friendly beast or if that bonus action could cause a cascade of attacks, I'd assume it is only a single, but you haven't rewritten it to include the "any allied beast" language. Then, you get your subclass and become a "Beastmaster" able to command a single beast only with your action... Which is signifigantly worse than the ability you already have at second level. This of course would just highlight the problem with the Beastmaster's currently written version




Thanks for going back through the thread I think you caught most of that discussion. 

Yes with the fighting style you'd be able to use a bonus action to give any allied adjacent animal an attack. Once you became a beast master, you could also give up an attack of yours to give them an attack, which would allow the beast to make two attacks that round, but of course you've lost both your bonus action and an attack of your attack action. I think that works pretty well. Yes, the bonus action attack is a "cheaper" cost than the attack action attack, but then you gave up other fighting styles to get it so I don't see an issue. It might not be a perfect patch, but it's a pretty darn good one, and better than what we have right now, and saves altering the entire sub-class (which WOTC is committed to not doing). I put it in the "good enough" category. 



> We also still have the situation of how few beasts are actually involved with the standard party, and how many of those beasts the players would even want to involve in the combat, because the fewer that number, the less useful your fighting style becomes




Right this is getting back to those spells I mentioned. those spells for the most part *require a friendly beast be nearby* (you touch a friendly beast with most of them). So it's already *assumed you're making or otherwise accessing friendly beasts around you* from creatures who likely do not start out as friendly. You're probably using your skills - and that's the biggest key to changing the attitude of animals to being friendly, a skill check. It might be a handle animal check, it might be a nature check to know something about the animal, it might be a check to track an animal, it might be a persuasion check if you can communicate directly by use of a spell or ability. But the game assumes you're accessing friendly beasts already with those spells and skills. 

There are spells to locate animals, spells to talk to animals, telepathically link with animals, see through an animals eyes and ears, charm animals, and a skill to persuade animals to become friendly. So they either make an animal friendly, or assume you routinely access friendly animals. 

Once you have a friendly animal, there are further spells to do special things with these friendly animals like get them to deliver a message for you, etc.. So the game does assume you can and likely do access friendly animals if that's the kind of character you're wanting to play. 

There are other classes which access friendly animals as well. Some Warlocks can speak with animals at will. A Totem Barbarian gets some abilities with beasts. A Nature Cleric can charm animals with Channel Divinity. Of course Druids get plenty of animal related spells and abilities. You can buy animals, and the player's handbook lists these: Camel, Donkey, Mule, Draft Horse, Elephant, Mastiff, Pony, Riding Horse, Warhorse. It also suggests you can potentially access even more animals and mounts.

So the game does assume you can and likely do access friendly animals if that's the kind of character you're wanting to play. Which was my point.

Will a lot of people be interested in this fighting style if they don't plan on becoming a beast master? Probably not. But, they might. Particularly if they are themselves or if they are playing with a Nature Cleric, a Druid, a Warlock with Beast Speech, or possibly a Barbarian Totem Warrior, you might want this fighting style. You'd want to coordinate other friendly animals being around the party, but yes it has its purposes outside the beastmaster sub-class. But yes, of course it's primary use is for the beastmaster sub-class...which is the topic we were discussing. 

As for the discussion about people not wanting to treat companions as disposable as being too "old school" I disagree. The Ranger is no longer required to be a "good" alignment, like they often were in prior editions. I think it's actually rather "new school" to be a neutral or even evil aligned Ranger and treat companions as disposable things which you renew each 8 hour long rest as needed.  But even if you view it as old school, I don't think it's that much of an unappealing concept to a lot of people. As I mentioned earlier, I appreciate the irony that I am a vegetarian in real life and I am the one advocating that approach, but others agreed it had it's appeal. If it's not for you, that's fine. But I don't think it's as anathema to as many people as you seem to think it is. I don't think the game has "moved on" from that concept, and it may in fact be moving closer to it these days.


----------



## Eric V (Aug 24, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Oh, no, I'm referring to the Revised Ranger.  Always.  Because, well, that's  the point isn't it?  The PHB Beastmaster is very unpopular and not very good.  So, they gave us the Revised Beastmaster and the problem is resolved.  I'm still, frankly, baffled why this is even a conversation.
> 
> The PHB Beastmaster SUCKS!
> 
> ...




Is it, though?  I mean, I like it myself, but it seems it might be a bit overpowered...like a lot of UA material before it gets edited and printed in an official book.  Maybe people were hoping for that process?


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 24, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Oh, no, I'm referring to the Revised Ranger.  Always.  Because, well, that's  the point isn't it?  The PHB Beastmaster is very unpopular and not very good.  So, they gave us the Revised Beastmaster and the problem is resolved.  I'm still, frankly, baffled why this is even a conversation.
> 
> The PHB Beastmaster SUCKS!
> 
> ...




Yeah, I get that. 

I guess for me personally, I kind of would have liked them to admit it is an official variant of the class. I don't need it in print, but JC saying "There is one Ranger, the one in the Player's Handbook" really puts a damper on things if I'm ever talking to a guy who wants to play a ranger, but refuses to play "unofficial" material. 

I actually just ran into a player like that. Not in a game I'm running, but one I'm playing. They are completely against all UA and Homebrew options, and doesn't want another player to use the Revised Ranger. Not my call or my problem (I'm not the GM and I don't even know if the Ranger wants to use the Revised Version, it just came up in table talk) but stuff like that just makes things more complicated than they need to be. 




Mistwell said:


> Thanks for going back through the thread I think you caught most of that discussion.
> 
> Yes with the fighting style you'd be able to use a bonus action to give any allied adjacent animal an attack. Once you became a beast master, you could also give up an attack of yours to give them an attack, which would allow the beast to make two attacks that round, but of course you've lost both your bonus action and an attack of your attack action. I think that works pretty well. Yes, the bonus action attack is a "cheaper" cost than the attack action attack, but then you gave up other fighting styles to get it so I don't see an issue. It might not be a perfect patch, but it's a pretty darn good one, and better than what we have right now, and saves altering the entire sub-class (which WOTC is committed to not doing). I put it in the "good enough" category.




A few points. 

Biggest one, in terms of RAW, how does this work for the Beast's Action Economy. Are we saying this is similar to Haste or Action Surge in that the beast is given an action to use, because I didn't assume you could do both. This could also allow the beast to Dodge and Attack on the same turn, which is relatively nice, even though the Ranger is forgotten by that point, having to use their action and bonus action. (Something I had not realized, Beastmasters can only give up an attack if they want the beast to attack, if the beast is helping, dodging, ect, they need to give up their full action until they hit level 7) 

Secondly, an adjacent beast ally? That is awfully harsh, since it means a beastmaster will be in melee scrums even as an archer if they want to use this. If you want to limit it so the Ranger and the beast need to be near each other, at least make it 30 ft so the archer has a chance to stay out of melee. 

Third, just thought of this since you have double-dipping for the attack action, how does this interact with the level 11 ability Bestial Fury? If the Ranger gives up an attack and their bonus action does the Beast get 4 attacks? 


It isn't a bad offensive buff, I will admit, and the Ranger acting as body shield for the Beast if they are adjacent and attacked (does nothing against spell saves, since those aren't attacks) is nice defensively too. You just need a beast that can deal enough damage and have a high enough AC. 




Mistwell said:


> Right this is getting back to those spells I mentioned. those spells for the most part *require a friendly beast be nearby* (you touch a friendly beast with most of them). So it's already *assumed you're making or otherwise accessing friendly beasts around you* from creatures who likely do not start out as friendly. You're probably using your skills - and that's the biggest key to changing the attitude of animals to being friendly, a skill check. It might be a handle animal check, it might be a nature check to know something about the animal, it might be a check to track an animal, it might be a persuasion check if you can communicate directly by use of a spell or ability. But the game assumes you're accessing friendly beasts already with those spells and skills.
> 
> There are spells to locate animals, spells to talk to animals, telepathically link with animals, see through an animals eyes and ears, charm animals, and a skill to persuade animals to become friendly. So they either make an animal friendly, or assume you routinely access friendly animals.
> 
> ...




Okay, the game does have spells that assume animals will be nearby and utilized occasionally. That does not mean the game assumes they will be involved in combat, nor that they will stick around. 

I've seen more people use Speak With Animals to try and pump alley dogs and Guardsmen's Horses for information than I have ever seen them convince a badger to go on an adventure with them. Also, of the animals you listed for sale every single one is a beast of burden, except maybe the mastiff but they are also listed with a carrying capacity (BTW, how did I never notice Elephants for sale in the PHB?). 

Your fighting style is by necessity a combat buff, and I can't imagine any sane ranger giving up their bonus action for a mule's +2 to hit 1d4+2 attack. It exists as an option, but it isn't relevant if no one would do it. 

Those spells are situational uses at best, utilizing the animals you find during an adventure, but for your fighting style to be useful before a Ranger get's their companion, or after their companion dies and before they get a new one, that there are viable, combat ready beasts on the battlefield. And you have to actually try to even get beasts on the battlefield period, let alone ones that would be worth giving up your bonus action to make attack while you are standing next to them. This isn't a question of "can you convince a wild bear to follow the party and fight for you" or "can you buy horses and get them to fight for you" it is a question of "Will these beasts be common enough and combat capable enough for it to be worth this fighting style." And I don't think the sparrows the druid occasionally uses to send messages or the old plow horse you borrowed from Farmer Johnson to carry the McGuffin really count towards that. 




Mistwell said:


> As for the discussion about people not wanting to treat companions as disposable as being too "old school" I disagree. The Ranger is no longer required to be a "good" alignment, like they often were in prior editions. I think it's actually rather "new school" to be a neutral or even evil aligned Ranger and treat companions as disposable things which you renew each 8 hour long rest as needed.  But even if you view it as old school, I don't think it's that much of an unappealing concept to a lot of people. As I mentioned earlier, I appreciate the irony that I am a vegetarian in real life and I am the one advocating that approach, but others agreed it had it's appeal. If it's not for you, that's fine. But I don't think it's as anathema to as many people as you seem to think it is. I don't think the game has "moved on" from that concept, and it may in fact be moving closer to it these days.




I don't think the game is moving closer to "Dog Fighting the Class" whether or not you want to play an evil ranger. I think my biggest gripe with it is the idea that it was the intended goal of the design, because... man does that worry me. It just goes completely against the cultures I've seen at the various tables in my area, which means there is a massive cultural disconnect somewhere.. 

It just breaks my enjoyment of the game I suppose, to imagine someone throwing animals to their deaths against massive monsters. "This manticore is tougher than I thought, I'll open cage #3 and send the badger in next, he'll probably survive a round or two while I patch up that bear I caught." It just sickens me, and I can't imagine a player at my table even attempting something like that. 

And yeah, double standard for the Beastmaster, who takes in a single beast instead of a menagerie, but perceptions and tastes aren't always rational and one bothers me far more than the other.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 24, 2018)

Of course there's still something very wrong with the PHB Beastmaster. 

Anyone tell you different is just full of Crawford's corporate bullshuck.

Theoretically it could be that everyone likes it. But the simplest explanation I'd often the correct one.

And instead of trying to wrap my head around the magic wand wave explanation where people suddenly change opinion completely, here's a simpler explanation for ya:

They want the problem to go away.

Boom. Done. 

I find this explanation much more plausible. As an added bonus, I don't have to come across as a company stooge.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 24, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Oh, no, I'm referring to the Revised Ranger.  Always.  Because, well, that's  the point isn't it?  The PHB Beastmaster is very unpopular and not very good.  So, they gave us the Revised Beastmaster and the problem is resolved.  I'm still, frankly, baffled why this is even a conversation.
> .



You appear as if you haven't listened. At all. Here, let me summarize the thread for you:

1. WotC says the revised Beastmaster isn't needed, since everybody loves the PHB Hunter. 
2. Some of us call BS.
3. You point out the UA revision still exists.
4. We point out it is still not official. 

In short, you are entirely and completely wrong. There is no solution and WotC pretends there is no problem. 

There. Any questions?


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 24, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Of course there's still something very wrong with the PHB Beastmaster.
> 
> Anyone tell you different is just full of Crawford's corporate bullshuck.
> 
> ...




I dunno, sounds like something that somebody on Fantasy Flight Games payroll might say (since goofy nonsequiter is the rule of the day). 

I mean, Heaven forbid anyone might actually disagee or anything.


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Aug 24, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> You appear as if you haven't listened. At all. Here, let me summarize the thread for you:
> 
> 1. WotC says the revised Beastmaster isn't needed, since everybody loves the PHB Hunter.
> 2. Some of us call BS.
> ...




1.  Every time there is a "monsters are too weak" thread, you argue that is true.
2.  You also regularly claim that any who disagrees with you is on the WotC payroll.
3.  If the monsters are too weak, then the PHB BM's pet is in no danger.
4.  Since you are now claiming that monsters are not too weak, since they can obviously threatened the pet, you, [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION], are clearly on WotC's payroll.

So which WotC employee are you?

'Fess up.  We have the right to know.


----------



## OB1 (Aug 24, 2018)

I really don’t know what’s so complicated about this.  At the start of 5e, most of the players were veterans to D&D and brought in expectations and habits from previous versions of the game.  Those perceptions led to an initial misunderstanding of how the class would work in play and resulted in low satisfaction reporting in polls. 

At this point, most people playing 5e never played another version, and without that bias find the Ranger class to be satisfying. Additionally, those who have played previously have been able to adjust their play style to the new system. Thus the change in polling results.  It wasn’t the class, it was the players. 

Given the evidence that tens of thousands of people are able to play a Beastmaster Ranger successfully, I can only conclude that [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] lacks the skill necessary to do so, and wishes WotC to produce an easier version of the class more in line with his abilities.


----------



## dco (Aug 24, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> Why do you find the melee hunter bad?
> 
> Sure, Hunter's Mark interfering with making the bonus action attack is aggravating, but if you pull it off you can get 2d6+2d6+1d8+modx2 by third level. That makes them a blender of death. 4th level (or v. Human) you can turn that into 2d8+2d6+1d8+modx2 and +1 AC. Get Warcaster for advantage on concentration checks and you are sitting relatively pretty
> 
> ...



- Any class can be as good as a ranger tracking outside their favored terrain and a favored enemy, some classes are better if you choose to improve the proficiency with survival and other skills, or use spells like enhance ability.
- You can sense that some creatures are within 1-6 miles using your spell slots. I think this is a bad class feature, specially if I compare it to class features as sense evil.
- Hide in plain sight, 1 min of camouflage for a good bonus to hide in front of a solid surface, at lvl 10 this for me is another bad class feature. If the class didn't have spells it would have a purpose, but it has spells, not going to point what other classes can do at this level to be more stealthy.
- Vanish... Not sure what is this for, when someone hides on our games normally it has time to do it. You can not be tracked, but you could use pass without trace since 9 levels.
- Foe slayer, at last you get a damage or attack bonus beyond lvl 3, you only need level 20 for the +5 once per round.

For melee:
- Whirlwind attack is horrible because it is situational and it's always better to concentrate attacks, it also doesn't work with two weapon fightning, welcome to another trap.
Your real damage bonuses at lvl 3:
- Giant killer, if the campaign is long you must advice the player about the level 15 options, it's also extremely situational, large+ creature that fails an attack against you.
- Horde breaker, an extra attack, good, but only when the enemies are adjacent, situational and being melee sometimes you'll need to reach the position and that can mean OAs.
- Colossus slayer, the best one, you concentrate damage, better when you have another attack, but only 1d8 per turn.

At level 11 the rest of melee classes look better, at level 12 the warlock using pact of the blade looks better.
The spell that can give the ranger more damage is Hunter's mark and it needs concentration, as you are melee you are going to be hit easily and constitution is not one of your good saving throws. It also needs bonus actions, bad for two weapon melee.



Mistwell said:


> If you are "seeing" problems with the Hunter Ranger without having played it, and you see a large number of people here who have actually had experience playing it and find it to be fine, then you should probably consider playing it first before deciding it's bad. You might be wrong. It's not "extremely bad" in the opinions of many, many people who have actually played it.



I don't have anything to consider, a lot of people have experiences I don't want to experience because of reasons, someone enjoying the ranger class is not a good reason for me to try it when I have my own reasons of why I don't like it and the experience is not an argument about balance, some people have played it and also find the class unbalanced and with problems.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 24, 2018)

dco said:


> I don't have anything to consider, a lot of people have experiences I don't want to experience because of reasons




What reasons would apply here where you've come to a judgement about something without trying it out first, your judgement seems to run counter to the judgement of those who have tried it, and it's something fun in a game so not some undesirable experience? I am genuinely curious what "reasons" means in these circumstance?



> someone enjoying the ranger class is not a good reason for me to try it




It is though. That's pretty much the primary reason to try most new things in life - other people like it and encourage you to try it before deciding what to think about it.  It's not like people are offering you an addictive drug here (I mean beyond the addictive nature of D&D itself). 



> when I have my own reasons of why I don't like it and the experience is not an argument about balance, some people have played it and also find the class unbalanced and with problems.




Who? Who has played it and found issues with balance? I have not seen that comment yet. Some people want it to do a bit more or less, but I have not seen anyone mention an issue with it being unbalanced.


----------



## collin (Aug 24, 2018)

I have been reading through some of the posts here and am amazed this conversation still seems highly discussed and debated. And in some cases, highly emotional.  

In addition to players comparing ranger 5e to older versions they are used to versus new players who have no previous playing bias, there seems to be further disagreement on what is real (or true or official or canon) versus home-brew or unofficial.  WotC could step in and create some official change, but they have already offered up options for free in UA.  At this point, I tend to think any changes they would make would create as much dissatisfaction as the current version, i.e., it's a trap fraught with debate and complaints no matter what they do (or don't do).  So after already offering up free alternatives, what would be their incentive to make an "official" change to the class?  None, as far as I can see.  They can wait until they come out with DnD 5.5e or 6th edition if they want to make changes, for which they will then reap $$ for doing so.  

I personally have never felt like every single rule has to be from the tablets on the mountaintop.  I think WotC fully realizes and expects that players will change some of the rules to suit their particular group or game.  Rules are not necessarily made to be broken, but since this is an RPG and not international law, I don't think anyone's feathers are going to get ruffled if some players want to make some tweaks or changes to some RPG rules.

I am of the opinion the ranger class is not all that broken; it just needs a tweak.  My one suggestion for players who still think the ranger class (I am not talking class sub-types here - that's a whole other discussion) itself is broken?  Give the Ranger "Hunter's Mark" as a free spell (or ability) at 3rd or 4th level, like Horizon Walker gets Protection from Evil and Good for free at 3rd level.  

If you don't like that, fine: make your own rules. If you don't like what WotC puts out, let your money do the talking and don't buy their stuff.  I don't see it as any more complicated or frustrating than that.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 24, 2018)

collin said:


> At this point, I tend to think any changes they would make would create as much dissatisfaction as the current version




Pretty sure no-one would be _less_ happy if they gave the Animal Companion some god damn hit dice, rather than just hit points. Of course, then they'd have to allow animal companions that might be stronger than a Wizard with 10 Constitution...


----------



## dco (Aug 24, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> What reasons would apply here where you've come to a judgement about something without trying it out first, your judgement seems to run counter to the judgement of those who have tried it, and it's something fun in a game so not some undesirable experience? I am genuinely curious what "reasons" means in these circumstance?
> 
> It is though. That's pretty much the primary reason to try most new things in life - other people like it and encourage you to try it before deciding what to think about it.  It's not like people are offering you an addictive drug here (I mean beyond the addictive nature of D&D itself).



Not sure why do you insist or what is so difficult to grasp, I find it unbalanced because of reasons and I don't like the class as it is, don't need and don't want to try it because I'm not a masochist, I play for fun.



> Who? Who has played it and found issues with balance? I have not seen that comment yet. Some people want it to do a bit more or less, but I have not seen anyone mention an issue with it being unbalanced.



You can search this forum, use google, meet more people or read the revised ranger UA specially the first paragraphs.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 24, 2018)

dco said:


> Not sure why do you insist or what is so difficult to grasp, I find it unbalanced because of reasons and I don't like the class as it is, don't need and don't want to try it because I'm not a masochist, I play for fun.
> 
> 
> You can search this forum, use google, meet more people or read the revised ranger UA specially the first paragraphs.




I have, and I find nobody saying anything about the Hunter Ranger being unbalanced. You made a claim, I've tried to back up your own claim and found nothing, so where are you seeing this? If it's all over this forum and Google and the UA (which it's not in that UA by the way - I just checked and it says nothing even vaguely like that as all it talks about is unpopularity and the weakness of some powers, not an unbalanced nature of the class or that subclass in particular) then it should be pretty easy go link to ... but it's not. WHO says the Hunter Ranger is unbalanced?


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 24, 2018)

OB1 said:


> I really don’t know what’s so complicated about this.  At the start of 5e, most of the players were veterans to D&D and brought in expectations and habits from previous versions of the game.  Those perceptions led to an initial misunderstanding of how the class would work in play and resulted in low satisfaction reporting in polls.
> 
> At this point, most people playing 5e never played another version, and without that bias find the Ranger class to be satisfying. Additionally, those who have played previously have been able to adjust their play style to the new system. Thus the change in polling results.  It wasn’t the class, it was the players.
> 
> Given the evidence that tens of thousands of people are able to play a Beastmaster Ranger successfully, I can only conclude that [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] lacks the skill necessary to do so, and wishes WotC to produce an easier version of the class more in line with his abilities.




This exactly: things have evolved in the past four years.


----------



## ad_hoc (Aug 24, 2018)

OB1 said:


> Given the evidence that tens of thousands of people are able to play a Beastmaster Ranger successfully, I can only conclude that [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] lacks the skill necessary to do so, and wishes WotC to produce an easier version of the class more in line with his abilities.




If a player were to ask me how they actually play in the game I would say:

Hunter is straightforward
Beastmaster requires creativity and its strengths are circumstantial

For reference I also advise new players that Rogues' strength is circumstantial as well. I have found that new players have difficulty with the Rogue as they aren't used to the open ended nature of tabletop RPGs.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 25, 2018)

One point that has come and gone that I thought I would bring up.

The very Revised Ranger UA article mentions that the ranger's "ranking as D&D's weakest class by a significant margin".

Now I wouldn't say the ranger isn't flavorful and fun to play. But by the article's own admission, the class is much weaker than other classes.


----------



## Eric V (Aug 25, 2018)

Stalker0 said:


> One point that has come and gone that I thought I would bring up.
> 
> The very Revised Ranger UA article mentions that the ranger's "ranking as D&D's weakest class by a significant margin".
> 
> Now I wouldn't say the ranger isn't flavorful and fun to play. *But by the article's own admission, the class is much weaker than other classes.*




But since people play it, there's no reason to address this, really.

I get it: there's no money involved in tweaking the class, and the game itself doesn't really care about balance so much, so why bother?

I would have just liked to see that original effort completed, is all.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 25, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> There. Any questions?




Yeah, can you please cool the rage a bit man? 

Look, I get the frustration and anger, but you've pretty much just tossed around insults for the last two weeks. You obviously aren't helping the case, and it is getting to be a bit much. 




OB1 said:


> Given the evidence that tens of thousands of people are able to play a Beastmaster Ranger successfully, I can only conclude that [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] lacks the skill necessary to do so, and wishes WotC to produce an easier version of the class more in line with his abilities.




First of all, unnecessary jab man. 

Secondly, do you actually have evidence of "Tens of Thousands" of players who are playing the PHB Beastmaster with no houserules what so ever, and that they are completely satisfied?

All I've heard from WoTC is that people are satisfied with "The Ranger" and that is a completely different statement, considering there are so many different versions of the Ranger officially and unofficially. 





dco said:


> - Any class can be as good as a ranger tracking outside their favored terrain and a favored enemy, some classes are better if you choose to improve the proficiency with survival and other skills, or use spells like enhance ability.
> - You can sense that some creatures are within 1-6 miles using your spell slots. I think this is a bad class feature, specially if I compare it to class features as sense evil.
> - Hide in plain sight, 1 min of camouflage for a good bonus to hide in front of a solid surface, at lvl 10 this for me is another bad class feature. If the class didn't have spells it would have a purpose, but it has spells, not going to point what other classes can do at this level to be more stealthy.
> - Vanish... Not sure what is this for, when someone hides on our games normally it has time to do it. You can not be tracked, but you could use pass without trace since 9 levels.
> - Foe slayer, at last you get a damage or attack bonus beyond lvl 3, you only need level 20 for the +5 once per round.




Don't disagree with any of these (part of the reason I like the Revised Ranger is they altered quite of few of those class features you listed) but, considering you are quoting my statement on melee rangers, none of this has to do with melee rangers. This is just generally ranger problems. Again, don't really disagree with a lot of what you are saying, just looking for context. 



dco said:


> For melee:
> - Whirlwind attack is horrible because it is situational and it's always better to concentrate attacks, it also doesn't work with two weapon fightning, welcome to another trap.
> Your real damage bonuses at lvl 3:
> - Giant killer, if the campaign is long you must advice the player about the level 15 options, it's also extremely situational, large+ creature that fails an attack against you.
> ...




I agree whirlwind is highly situational, there are cases when being able to hit more than 3 enemies is going to be better than focusing fire on a single enemy, but they aren't going to come up often. 

I agree, Giant Killer kind of sucks, though I hadn't noticed it competed with Stand Against the Tide. I will say, it is more of a choice than you make it out to be factors like is the large creature that missed you hitting harder than you do and/or is there an adjacent enemy you would rather hit instead of the one attacking you, would skew the choice between the two. But, I'd almost be tempted to rewrite Giant Killer and remove the size requirement, if I didn't know retaliation abilities  were generally very high level abilities. 

I actually used to dislike horde breaker as well, but I've seen it come up an awful lot. And since my tables tend to use flanking rules it is not uncommon for a melee type to be adjacent to two separate enemies. It can also mean that a Ranger in the right position can make 4 attacks by level 5, which is incredibly good. It isn't going to activate every turn, but that doesn't mean it is bad per se, and when it does activate, it usually means you are needing the extra attacks to help even the odds. 

Saying "only 1d8 a turn" is a little disingenuous I think for Colossus Slayer. It essentially turns one of your attacks into a crit per turn (assuming you are using a d8 weapon) and if you actually crit you get to do x4 dice of damage. And it is a level three ability, so wouldn't expect it to be super-ultra powerful. 

Hunter's Mark being concentration does mean it is going to be under threat while you are in melee, but until you get really high level, most enemies aren't going to hit for more than 20 damage in melee at a time. So, most of your saves are going to be DC 10, and you can take Warcaster to get advantage or resilience to buff those saves if you are worried about them (actually, resilience Con isn't a bad choice period) so you can counteract that weak point. Not playing nice with dual-wielding is a problem, but depending on how fast you are killing your targets, it might not matter much. Losing every other off-hand attack, but getting a d6 on two main hand attacks isn't a massive dip in DPR I'd imagine. 

Depending on Builds and Situations, a level 11 fighter may not be better than the ranger. Battlemaster going nova, or Paladin doing the same are incredibly high damages, but a Champion, Eldritch Knight, or Barbarians who don't use GWM are going to be about the same I'd imagine. Blade Pact warlocks look better NOW, because they've just gotten a massive number of buffs, but they didn't used to look so good even at level 12. Plus, they've got the same concentration issues. 


Overall, I can agree the Melee Ranger isn't as good as the Archer Ranger by high levels (whirlwind attack sucks) but I've seen plenty of them in action, and they are devastating before level 11 and that is a large portion of the game. Plus, most of your comments and concerns have little to do with the melee ranger, because they could be said about either ranger


----------



## Prakriti (Aug 25, 2018)

If you're a DM, and you think a player's character is under-performing, then just add class-specific magic items to the treasure. 

Is the Ranger not doing enough damage? Drop a Longbow +2 into the treasure. Or create a new item: *Longbow of the Wilds*. _+2 enhancement bonus. 3 charges. Casting Hunter's Mark costs 1 charge. Charges replenish at dawn the next day.   Can only be wielded by a Ranger._

Is the Ranger's pet wolf too weak? Create a new magic item: *Collar of Animal Fortitude*. _This item gives an animal companion an extra 4 hit points per Ranger level. If the companion drops to 0 hit points, it rolls death saving throws just like any other character. _

And so on.


----------



## Laurefindel (Aug 26, 2018)

... or go back to the root of the pop-culture pet-friendly ranger, and give the ranger a figurine of wondrous power...


----------



## Jester David (Aug 26, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> Secondly, do you actually have evidence of "Tens of Thousands" of players who are playing the PHB Beastmaster with no houserules what so ever, and that they are completely satisfied?



Well, there are 15 or so million people playing D&D. (Or was it 19 million.) Roughly 1.25 million people play every class. 

But classes aren’t played equally. The top classes are slightly more played, and the bottom classes slightly less. Of those, the ranger is likely the #8 most played class. 
So if the top 4 classes get played 50% more frequently and the bottom classes get played 50% less.... well, the ranger is still in the middle and sitting at upwards of a million players.

Less than 10% of players were unhappy with the ranger. Now, the majority of those are likely just playing other classes. But even if that number is reflected in ranger players, that’s still 900,000 ranger fans who are satisfied with their class. 
Even if the number of ranger players is only half that number—a quarter even— that’s still tens of thousands. Hundreds really.


----------



## Jester David (Aug 26, 2018)

Laurefindel said:


> ... or go back to the root of the pop-culture pet-friendly ranger, and give the ranger a figurine of wondrous power...




The root would actually be how the 2e ranger got animals for followers rather than humans.
Which were probably pretty fragile at those levels...


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 26, 2018)

Jester David said:


> The root would actually be how the 2e ranger got animals for followers rather than humans.
> Which were probably pretty fragile at those levels...




Driz'zt is pre-2E, actually: may have influenced that choice.


----------



## Jester David (Aug 26, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Driz'zt is pre-2E, actually: may have influenced that choice.



Kinda. 
_Crystal Shard _came out in ‘88, but the book was hardly an instant hit, and work on 2e was already underway. It’s unlikely Drizzt influenced 2e Rangers...


----------



## Laurefindel (Aug 26, 2018)

The key word here was « pop-culture » (and the post wasn’t meant to be serious), indeed referencing to Drizz’t. Regardless of its true origin, I’m willing to bet that drizz’t set the archetype of the two-weapon fighting ranger travelling with an animal companion for a whole generation of players.

Actually, on of my first beast master « fix » was something like

When you choose this archetype, you gain a figurine or wondrous power:

At 3rd level, you get to choose one of the three following figurine of wondrous power options (list of three homebrewed challenge 1/2 figurines)

At 7th level, you replace your figurine of wondrous power with one of the three following options (list of three homebrewed CR 2 figurines)

At 15th level, you replace your figurine of wondrous power with one of the three following options (list of three homebrewed CR 5 figurines)


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 26, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Kinda.
> _Crystal Shard _came out in ‘88, but the book was hardly an instant hit, and work on 2e was already underway. It’s unlikely Drizzt influenced 2e Rangers...




True, but neither did 2E likely influence Driz'zt. Both probably influenced 3E, which left is the legacy now being discussed.


----------



## Jester David (Aug 26, 2018)

Laurefindel said:


> The key word here was « pop-culture » (and the post wasn’t meant to be serious), indeed referencing to Drizz’t. Regardless of its true origin, I’m willing to bet that drizz’t set the archetype of the two-weapon fighting ranger travelling with an animal companion for a whole generation of players.



It helped, but it wasn't the sole factor. Just all rangers getting two weapon fighting in 2e (which was parallel design more than Drizzt) and animal companion followers made that a thing. 
3e just doubled down. And 3.5e was influenced as much by Legolas, as the first LotR movie has just come out.    



Parmandur said:


> True, but neither did 2E likely influence Driz'zt. Both probably influenced 3E, which left is the legacy now being discussed.



If Drizzt has heavily influenced the ranger, they probably would have lost their spellcasting. As Drizzt doesn’t use much non-drow magic.
The 3e ranger hews pretty close to what they did in 2e. Heck, even in 4e the pet ranger wasn’t an immediate option, and overlapped poorly with two weapon fighting.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 26, 2018)

Jester David said:


> It helped, but it wasn't the sole factor. Just all rangers getting two weapon fighting in 2e (which was parallel design more than Drizzt) and animal companion followers made that a thing.
> 3e just doubled down. And 3.5e was influenced as much by Legolas, as the first LotR movie has just come out.
> 
> 
> ...




The two weapon fighting thing definitely comes through Driz'zt, because in 1E that was a Drow ability specifically.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 26, 2018)

Jester David said:


> snip logic



I hope you realize pulling numbers out of hats does your credibility no good.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 26, 2018)

Laurefindel said:


> figurine of wondrous power



I'm sure you already realize this, but the greatest fix isn't the figurines' increased stats but something much more fundamental:

Expectations on survival.

Assuming the ebony panther (or whatever) returns to life each time the item is used, this alone fixes perhaps the greatest charge at the rules: the intense lack of survivability.

Some people here are so desperate to avoid having to admit WotC can do one wrong, they're constructing a narrative where people are retconned into not expecting their animal companions to survive combat, or not to enter combat at all.

It is despicable. 

As for your house-rule, I don't think that is the solution I'd recommend WotC to make official. That does not mean it can't work or that I disapprove.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 26, 2018)

As regards legacy, why noone cares to mention the obvious source of expectations is beyond me.

After all, World of Warcraft gave people not one but two classes with functional (nay, competitive) combat pet builds. (Warlocks and Hunters)

Obviously people expect D&D to offer at least one similar idea. (The PHB did try, but failed.)


----------



## Jester David (Aug 26, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> The two weapon fighting thing definitely comes through Driz'zt, because in 1E that was a Drow ability specifically.



It's an example of parallel design. 
While making 2e, the game designers were looking for something else to add to the ranger to make it distinct, and someone mentioned two-weapon fighting. Which, at that point, had just been a drow thing. So they moved it to the ranger.
What they _didn't_ do was look at the novel of a first time author that had just released to moderate sales and decided to base the entire class based on the abilities of the protagonist's sidekick.

It was a coincidence. 

Don't forget, it took some time to realise that Drizzt was a success. Heck, Salvatore had planned to continue the adventures of the characters in a fourth book, but they made him wrap things up in a hasty epilogue at the end of _The Halfling Gem_. And there wasn't a comparable internet presence at the time for people to share the books and chat about their fandom.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 26, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Some people here are so desperate to avoid having to admit WotC can do one wrong, they're constructing a narrative where people are retconned into not expecting their animal companions to survive combat, or not to enter combat at all.
> 
> It is despicable.




Really, the people who disagree with you are "deserving hatred and contempt," which is what despicable means?


----------



## Eric V (Aug 26, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Some people here are so desperate to avoid having to admit WotC can do one wrong, they're constructing a narrative where people are retconned into not expecting their animal companions to survive combat, or not to enter combat at all.




We've always been at war with Eurasia! 

But seriously, while I wish it were otherwise in this case, it just seem that WotC's idea of "wrong" is very different.  Rangers are being played, they seem popular (now...), and there's no money in addressing the concerns people have for the class.

This is "greatest hits" D&D; it's not risk-taking, it's not trying to be super-innovative...it's trying to be popular.  As a business model, there's nothing wrong with that.  Do they think they risk hurting the brand or ever-greenness of it by having multiple sources for the rules in different areas?  Probably.  After all, when you buy a board game, you expect to be able to play right out of the box, right?  Not have to scour online for the other rules?

So even though the PHB Ranger is lacking, it's not lacking enough to make what they feel is a bad marketing decision...and the latter will always be more important than anything else as far as the game goes.

This isn't even the first time this has happened.  The sorcerer has been seen to be lacking even moreso than the ranger, and when the UA Storm Sorcerer was released with bonus spells known, it was seen as a well-needed and appreciated fix.  Didn't stick, though, since the PHB sorcerer didn't have bonus spells...so even though the fix made sense from a class balance perspective, the fix flew in the face of the evergreen product and so was removed.

They are making decisions so that the game lasts longer, and maximizes profit...some things are going to get lost in that priority scheme, is all.

In the meantime, since 5e is quite forgiving and really doesn't seem to care much about balance, I would use the UA Ranger as is.  It's a bit overpowered, sure, but big whoop.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 26, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> I'm sure you already realize this, but the greatest fix isn't the figurines' increased stats but something much more fundamental:
> 
> Expectations on survival.
> 
> ...




Well, they did make a mistake in their overall approach to the Beastmaster: they probably would have been better off cutting out animal companians as a class feature entirely. The survivability issues are a basic feature of the subclass design. The animal is a resource that provides, mathematically, an equivalent to the potential damage of the Hunter's subclass features. Being precious with the bag of HP and damage dice will result in suboptimal performance, but then the natural flavor approach many people are going to bring to the subclass (see Laura Bailey and her bear) will tend towards that precious approach.


----------



## Laurefindel (Aug 26, 2018)

The more I think about it, the more I believe it’s an absence of well defined animal handling rules that is at the root of the issue.

Were those rules made clear in the first place, and the beastmaster a clearly better animal handler, people would have reacted much better IMHO. I wish the difference between an intelligent ally and an animal companion had been made clearer and more coherently throughout the whole ruleset.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 26, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Well, there are 15 or so million people playing D&D. (Or was it 19 million.) Roughly 1.25 million people play every class.
> 
> But classes aren’t played equally. The top classes are slightly more played, and the bottom classes slightly less. Of those, the ranger is likely the #8 most played class.
> So if the top 4 classes get played 50% more frequently and the bottom classes get played 50% less.... well, the ranger is still in the middle and sitting at upwards of a million players.
> ...




Great usage of deductive reasoning. 

Now, how many people playing fighter, rogues, and clerics would like to play a ranger but don't because they think the ranger is too weak?

How many people play the ranger once, are dissatisfied, and never play it again. 

How many people are "satisfied" with the ranger, but would really like it to be just a bit more powerful

Just because you can figure there are 900,000 people who might be happy with the ranger as is, doesn't mean there are 2 million people who aren't. If I'm supposed to bow to the weight of hundreds of thousands of satisfied fans, should they bow to the weight of a million dissatisfied fans?

Because, using your own numbers, if even .1% of the players who play other classes (13.75 million) are dissatisfied with the ranger, you are looking a 1.375 million people. 





Eric V said:


> This isn't even the first time this has happened.  The sorcerer has been seen to be lacking even moreso than the ranger, and when the UA Storm Sorcerer was released with bonus spells known, it was seen as a well-needed and appreciated fix.  Didn't stick, though, since the PHB sorcerer didn't have bonus spells...so even though the fix made sense from a class balance perspective, the fix flew in the face of the evergreen product and so was removed.




Tangent, this still upsets me. The UA Storm Sorcerer got nerfed way too hard. /End Tangent





Laurefindel said:


> The more I think about it, the more I believe it’s an absence of well defined animal handling rules that is at the root of the issue.
> 
> Were those rules made clear in the first place, and the beastmaster a clearly better animal handler, people would have reacted much better IMHO. I wish the difference between an intelligent ally and an animal companion had been made clearer and more coherently throughout the whole ruleset.





I'm curious as to your reasoning. How could the Animal Handling rules have been made more clear and that helped the Beastmaster? Keeping in mind that Bard's and Rogues Expertise could mean they are far Superior with the Animal Handling skill if they desired to be.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 26, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> I'm curious as to your reasoning. How could the Animal Handling rules have been made more clear and that helped the Beastmaster? Keeping in mind that Bard's and Rogues Expertise could mean they are far Superior with the Animal Handling skill if they desired to be.




For me, it's because the Bard and Rogue cannot convert animal followers into animal companions with 8 hours. It's the clarification on how to gather effective animal followers to replace animal companions that die that's lacking for the the existing companions that engage in combat (baring making them more effective or durable in combat).


----------



## Satyrn (Aug 26, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> I'm curious as to your reasoning. How could the Animal Handling rules have been made more clear and that helped the Beastmaster? Keeping in mind that Bard's and Rogues Expertise could mean they are far Superior with the Animal Handling skill if they desired to be.



I made a comment similar to [MENTION=67296]Laurefindel[/MENTION]'s

I think it would improve the beastmaster because it would show the baseline power of the pet if it belonged to the party's rogue, and then we could all actually see how the beastmaster's pet-related features are improvements to the pet, and by just how much.

Plus, it'd be clear that you don't have to be a beastmaster to have a pet.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 26, 2018)

Do I have this straight?

WotC made a horrible mistake with the Beastmaster class.  To fix that mistake, they need to make the pet as durable as a PC and deal equal damage to what a PC can.  Additionally, in order to fix this mistake, they should put a disclaimer on the class that this class is totally unbalanced and you can only play it if your DM okays it.

Is that about right?

 [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION], you actually expect WotC to publish something like this?  Seriously?


----------



## Laurefindel (Aug 27, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> I made a comment similar to @_*Laurefindel*_'s
> 
> I think it would improve the beastmaster because it would show the baseline power of the pet if it belonged to the party's rogue, and then we could all actually see how the beastmaster's pet-related features are improvements to the pet, and by just how much.
> 
> Plus, it'd be clear that you don't have to be a beastmaster to have a pet.




This exactly,

If it had been made clear that only intelligent creatures (INT 5 and up) act on their own turn and have their own actions, but that animals...

a) act on their master's turn
b) require that their master take an action to command them anything else than movement (possibly with an animal handling check)

...then the beastmaster's feature would immediately look more impressive. Otherwise, we can only compare the animal companion to a familiar or a summoned creature, both of which look superior to the animal companion.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Aug 27, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Do I have this straight?
> 
> WotC made a horrible mistake with the Beastmaster class.  To fix that mistake, they need to make the pet as durable as a PC and deal equal damage to what a PC can.  Additionally, in order to fix this mistake, they should put a disclaimer on the class that this class is totally unbalanced and you can only play it if your DM okays it.
> 
> ...




I think their is room for a middle ground here. If the Beastmaster sub-class could provide enough HP (Base+half ranger HP), so that the companion doesn't become a liability at higher levels because enemies can easily one shot it resulting in it being in effective while at the same time they lose a major subclass feature that might be in its place otherwise, is 100% reasonable. I think even in WOW though took an approach that your companion had a job that wasn't always doing tons of damage. If their were companion paths:

1. Melee Tank: provided an AC bonus, damage resistance bonus similar to rage, and an ability like sentinel where attacks of opportunity stop the targets movement.

2. Ranged/Caster hunter: Give the companion resistance to all magic and piercing damage, double speed, and any attack by and enemy targeting someone not in melee other than the companion with a ranged attack or spell gives that target 3/4 Cover bonus of +5 (so not stackable with other cover, but advantage/disadvantage still apply because that would suck for rogues) and +2 to save roll against that enemies spells.

3. Scout: innate speak with animals for the ranger with this companion, the ability to see through the eyes/hear through the companion, and +10 health

4. Combat: Pact Tactics, the companion grants the ranger advantage on attacks against targets engaged in its treat range and if the Ranger attacks an enemy, the companion has advantage on attacks against that enemy on its next turn.

None of these make the companion do character equivalent damage or health but are useful to the ranger for the whole game. I personally believe the pets should not be given damage bonus, despite WOW examples CapnZapp mentioned, in D&D I expect the ranger to do the killing and the companions to simple be a tool of advantage. I would also add two rules..

1. Pets do get their own turns (acton, bonus action, reaction). You still need to order them to attack specific enemies or not too, but if the ranger is attacked the companion will engage the first attacking enemy without a command and move on to the next enemy to attack the ranger once their current target is dead. 

2. Rangers get a resurrection ritual that takes 1 hour, to bring their companion back similar to Warlocks familiar. Otherwise rangers players get attached and afraid to use them hurting the class instead of helping it because their are protecting their class feature for advantage instead of utilizing it. 

That's my openion, take it for what its worth.

<Edited for better phrasing. It was kind of painful to read and hard to understand. Hopefully I cleaned it up a bit.>


----------



## Jester David (Aug 27, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> Great usage of deductive reasoning.
> 
> Now, how many people playing fighter, rogues, and clerics would like to play a ranger but don't because they think the ranger is too weak?



These would probably be among the 10% of fans in 2015 who decided the ranger was underpowered. A percentage that has only gone down. But said 10% would also include people who never liked the ranger and would be unhappy with any implementation of the class and people who don’t like rangers who casts spells and won’t be happy with any spellcaster rangers. 

So, the percentage that might play a variant range is inherently <10%

But this is also a _potential_ audience. They *might* play a ranger if it’s changed. But they also might not. And it’s favouring them instead of the people actually playing a ranger, who may not play an altered ranger. 



Chaosmancer said:


> How many people play the ranger once, are dissatisfied, and never play it again.



Apparently less than the people who play the other four classes less popular than the ranger. 
Shouldn’t those be a higher focus? 
(It’s almost as if most players care about other factors than inherent class power.)



Chaosmancer said:


> How many people are "satisfied" with the ranger, but would really like it to be just a bit more powerful



That’s not a useful statement.
How many people are satisfied with any class but would really like it to be a bit more powerful? I don’t think anyone would complain about _more_ power. 
Well... players who are primarily concerned about combat power at least. Which is not everyone. 

Plus, it’s not like the ranger class is bottom of the power rankings. It has the lowest ranked subclass, but others subclasses do just fine. 
And there is always going to be a subclass at the bottom. You could double the power level of the beast master and people would just find the next lowest subclass and gripe about that instead. Trying to balance all subclasses is and endless task. 



Chaosmancer said:


> Just because you can figure there are 900,000 people who might be happy with the ranger as is, doesn't mean there are 2 million people who aren't. If I'm supposed to bow to the weight of hundreds of thousands of satisfied fans, should they bow to the weight of a million dissatisfied fans?



True. 
But it also doesn’t mean there’s only 5000 people who aren’t happy. Should we bow to the weight of 5000 dissatisfied fans?

We don’t know the full numbers. But WotC does. And they decided that the ratio of unhappy fans in 2015 was worth doing something about, but the ratio of unhappy fans in 2017 and 2018 changes the dynamic and was not worth doing something about. 

Yes, the totally number of unhappy fans has not changed, but the number of happy fans has grown substantially, and the ratio is different. 



Chaosmancer said:


> Because, using your own numbers, if even .1% of the players who play other classes (13.75 million) are dissatisfied with the ranger, you are looking a 1.375 million people.



...
0.1% of 13.75 million is only 13,750 people.


----------



## Jester David (Aug 27, 2018)

Personally, I do think the beasts of the beast master are a little weak. 

First, they get 4 hp per level. Regardless of Con. But expected monster damage per CR increases by 5 each level, so the beast gets more fragile each level. Plus, it relies on the external healing, as it’s hit points go up, but not it’s Hit Dice. So it can’t heal between fights.

The easy fix is to let beasts add their hit points to Constitution, which makes the beast at least in line with the wizard in hp. Plus, the should get a bonus Hit Dice each level, which can be used to help during short rests. 
Right away that fixes most of the issues with beasts, and is a pretty small house rule. 

It might also be nice to let them boost an ability score with the ranger, which lets beasts be slightly customized. But that’s more of a change...


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 27, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> I made a comment similar to [MENTION=67296]Laurefindel[/MENTION]'s
> 
> I think it would improve the beastmaster because it would show the baseline power of the pet if it belonged to the party's rogue, and then we could all actually see how the beastmaster's pet-related features are improvements to the pet, and by just how much.
> 
> Plus, it'd be clear that you don't have to be a beastmaster to have a pet.








Laurefindel said:


> This exactly,
> 
> If it had been made clear that only intelligent creatures (INT 5 and up) act on their own turn and have their own actions, but that animals...
> 
> ...




I think your solution there Laurefindel is bad on a few levels. 

My biggest is wondering if you have thought through saying all creatures with an intelligence of less than 5 are unable to take actions. Because as soon as you do that, you might as well delete quite a few iconic creatures from the Monster Manual. A rule such as that would be completely unsustainable. 

And follow this by what it would look like for a DM designing an encounter. Let us say, a handful of Orcs in the mountains with pair of Dire Wolves they use for hunting. Not a terribly unreasonable encounter, but suddenly, if a DM is to be fair, their must be two orcs whose sole job is to command the Wolves to take their actions. And if the orcs are killed off, the wolves only option is to run away, because they suddenly can no longer fight. 

Heck, a classic "pit trap filled with snakes" would be completely harmless, because the snakes cannot attack if their is no one to tell them to attack. 


This is actually a big reason why the PHB Beastmaster is so nonsensical to some people, because clearly beasts can and do attack people, and yet being a "beastmaster" makes your companion unable to act on their own in combat, while Adventure Paths are still written with monsters commanding beasts to fight, and those beasts acting entirely independently of any control. 



Jester David said:


> ...
> 0.1% of 13.75 million is only 13,750 people.




Sorry, bad math moment. Wrote .1% and then did the math for 10%. That was entirely my bad. 





Jester David said:


> These would probably be among the 10% of fans in 2015 who decided the ranger was underpowered. A percentage that has only gone down. But said 10% would also include people who never liked the ranger and would be unhappy with any implementation of the class and people who don’t like rangers who casts spells and won’t be happy with any spellcaster rangers.
> 
> So, the percentage that might play a variant range is inherently <10%
> 
> But this is also a _potential_ audience. They *might* play a ranger if it’s changed. But they also might not. And it’s favouring them instead of the people actually playing a ranger, who may not play an altered ranger.




I don't know where you got the number 10% of fans in 2015, I also don't like your phrasing on how they "decided" the ranger was underpowered, as though it was a nearly arbitrary choice. 

The numbers I thought we were working off of are the current number of players, and the current number of players playing Rangers, but now you are talking about a group of players from 3 years ago. So, we are assuming that people's opinions haven't changed, that more people have gotten upset with the ranger, that the sentiments of those people have not spread? 

I will grant you, no fix will ever be perfect, there is no silver bullet, but just because we can't fix everything doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix anything. 




Jester David said:


> Apparently less than the people who play the other four classes less popular than the ranger.
> Shouldn’t those be a higher focus?
> (It’s almost as if most players care about other factors than inherent class power.)




You are completely right, we should focus on them as well. 

Which classes are they, why are they unpopular, what kinds of things could we do to fix them if there are legitimate problems.

Because, I think if you've been following the discussion on the Ranger you would find that a large part of the complaint is how the theme does not match the mechanics and it is far too backwards in how it approaches the beast companion. Yes, there is a mechanical argument as well about the power of the sub-class, but no solution proposed would beat out a Fighter armed with a Flametongue, or a Paladin's Smite damage Spikes or any of the other highest tiers of inherent class power. 

Trying to dismiss the concerns brought out as power gaming nonsense doesn't work when the problem is not limited to how weak the beast is, but instead extends into the action economy disaster of the their implementation and how it doesn't reflect the reality of how DMs use beasts in their own encounter. 



Jester David said:


> That’s not a useful statement.
> How many people are satisfied with any class but would really like it to be a bit more powerful? I don’t think anyone would complain about _more_ power.
> Well... players who are primarily concerned about combat power at least. Which is not everyone.
> 
> ...




It isn't a matter of who is at the bottom. At least, not to me. And it isn't all about combat power either. 

A Beastmaster is fully outclassed in utility by any person who takes the Find Familiar Ritual spell. The Familiar has a telepathic link, you can see through it's eyes, it can be turned into any type of small animal that might be useful so that it can fly one day as a sparrow scouting the forest and sneak into the a bar as a rat the next, it can deliver touch spells and it has it's own initiative and takes it's own actions. This actually means there is a potential argument that Find Familiar is more useful in combat than a beast master's companion as well, since it can take the Help action to grant advantage to an ally. 

The Beastmaster get's their companion 2 levels after someone can get Find Familiar, and it is far inferior as a utility option. An entire sub-class has half of it's potential usefulness outclassed by a single spell (Half because we are splitting Exploration and Combat, there are few pertinent ways to use either in Social situations). 

This isn't the slippery slope of "Now the Champion does 3.5 less DPR per day than the lowest class, so we need to buff them up followed by the Paladin who then falls behind on a per week basis" This is a severe mechanical problem.

Anecdotes are what they are, I understand that, but I have yet to hold a conversation with someone outside of this website who thinks the Beastmaster Ranger is perfectly fine. In just these past two weeks I've had a player in Dischord deride another player for choosing a Ranger (because they are too weak) and a conversation in the GiTP forums were again most people giving advice on the Beastmaster were urging the player to pick an entirely different class. 

But I think the core of it comes to me right here. 




Jester David said:


> We don’t know the full numbers. But WotC does. And they decided that the ratio of unhappy fans in 2015 was worth doing something about, but the ratio of unhappy fans in 2017 and 2018 changes the dynamic and was not worth doing something about.
> 
> Yes, the totally number of unhappy fans has not changed, but the number of happy fans has grown substantially, and the ratio is different.





So because WoTC dragged it's feet we don't have a problem anymore? That is an absurdity to me. 

CEO: "We devote ourselves to solving this problem"
Staff: "Sir, we just gained ten million new players, that changes our dissatisfaction rating to less than 30%"
CEO: "Great, no need to fix those problems then"


I understand, they are a business, they need to make money, and therefore they should only care about 55% of their audience because then they get to keep being successful. But, honestly, they don't need to even print anything new. The only part about JC's tweet (the one that started this whole thread) that truly upsets me is not acknowledging that for some players, the Revised Ranger is their Ranger of choice. 

"Due to shifts in the player base we are no longer going to devote resources to working on the Revised Ranger, but it is still available for those who prefer to use it." would have been received a lot better by me personally,  instead we got dismissed. There was never a problem, despite their research saying there was a problem and their solution only fueled the illusion of a problem, so they are glad to kill it off and move on. 

*sarcastic rant*
Well, at least now I know, can't just sit around and wait for them to finish any of the projects they started. Player base might change and they decide it isn't worth it anymore. Want a better version of the Mystic, contact them constantly about doing it now, because if you wait a year, more people might join the game who aren't aware of the mystic and the percentage of people looking forward to it will drop beneath levels worth bothering about. I mean, we all want the game to grow and expand and reach new audiences so they can share in our love for this game, but we've got to make sure everything gets fixed first, that way the new players won't skew things so that WoTC shuts down and stops producing the content we want now. /End Sarcastic Rant


----------



## ad_hoc (Aug 27, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Personally, I do think the beasts of the beast master are a little weak.
> 
> First, they get 4 hp per level. Regardless of Con. But expected monster damage per CR increases by 5 each level, so the beast gets more fragile each level. Plus, it relies on the external healing, as it’s hit points go up, but not it’s Hit Dice. So it can’t heal between fights.
> 
> ...




Yeah.

The only design flaw in the Beastmaster for me is that beasts are constrained to 1/4 CR but some of their stats are fixed or changed universally by the class.

Set HP and no multiattack favours beasts that have low HP and a single attack for their 1/4 CR.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Aug 27, 2018)

So my only problem with Rangers really is that I could *not build a descent two-weapon fighting build*. This is admittedly an annoyance for me because I played a 2 handed ranger in 3.5 that was awesome and have a bit of nostalgia there, but it picked it then because I did and still feel that the two-weapon fighting always was a symbolic ranger thing in side and outside of D&D. INFACT, they still get it as a fighting style in this edition too. 

They added some things like Zephyr strike that look like they are for Ranger melee moving in and out of enemies but on further inspection it only works on one attack and can be use with a ranged weapon making it a great spell for an archer to stay at ranged but not really that good in melee since its one strike and concentration.

Hunter's mark is your mult-hit go to spell but that's it and it doesn't scale, rangers don't really get a melee smite or anything that really lets them evoke more damage from multiple attacks, and even giving them booming blade or green flame blade only makes them descent at one weapon fighting. 

Absorb Elements - Scales, melee weapons, single attack (multiple attacks allow more chances to trigger, the need to get hit with elemental damage makes it unreliable at best, many elemental casters are immune/resistant to the elemental damage type they cast, and since 2/3 of your attacks are coming from Extra attack, you will usually have triggered before your 3rd swing. This making the times when you can use the spell, have a target it will actually damage, and miss twice but hit the third time negligible. Best to consider it a defense spell for the resistance.)

Ensnaring Strike - Scales, all weapons, single attack (multiple attacks allow more chances to trigger, but the one hit limit + the bonus action casting stops the off hand in the same turn you cast it and with two hits from extra attack your better off focusing on bow or single sword)

Conjure Barrage - Doesn't scale, thrown melee or ammunition, single attack (does not allow bonus action offhand attack because its a spell, but you could use a dagger one handed thrown and be just ass effective as an archer)

Conjure Volley - Basically the same as conjure Barrage but higher level damage and a vertical cylinder instead of a cone. Throw a dagger or an Arrow.

Steel Wind Strike - Doesn't scale, melee weapon, single attack (does not allow bonus action offhand attack because its a spell, but requires 1 melee weapon which one main hand melee weapon fulfils.)

-*So the ONLY ranger spells, class, or subclass features that I can find that work with the base class Two-weapon fighting style are:*

Hex - per hit +1d6 damage (doesn't scale)

Gloom Stalker -> Umbral sight (lvl 3),  invisible to darkvision *could* mean all 3 attacks at advantage. Not useful during the day or if even one enemy (or your party member) brought a light source.

Gloom Stalker -> Stalker's Furry (lvl 11), three chances to miss makes getting another attempt to hit on miss more likely to trigger. While not adding to damage max, damage reliability is welcome. It also, does not require you to use your reaction.

Monster Hunter -> Slayer's Prey (lvl 3), one target per short rest +1d6 per hit that stacks with hex.

All of this said, unless I missed something, two-weapon fight style for rangers as they are is a bit of "trap choice" where you look at the first 3 levels and think, "a two sword wielding ranger? Awesome!" only to find regret. *Is it soo much to ask that they make one subclass for two weapon fighting rangers like previous additions?*


----------



## Laurefindel (Aug 27, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> I think your solution there Laurefindel is bad on a few levels.
> 
> My biggest is wondering if you have thought through saying all creatures with an intelligence of less than 5 are unable to take actions. Because as soon as you do that, you might as well delete quite a few iconic creatures from the Monster Manual. A rule such as that would be completely unsustainable.
> 
> ...




Yeah, that’s when you have to differentiate between a wild animal and a character’s pet (read monster vs PC asset); the two won’t follow the same rules. This would not be the first and only asymmetrical element of 5e actually.

«but that’s completely meta, why would a beast play differently once it has a PC master !?! » you would say. You’d be right, it is very metagame-y, but no less than the present Animal Companion rules to be honest.

I’m not trying to backtrack what WotC has published; all I’m saying is that if this had been the rule from the beginning, then the PHB beastmaster would appear like an improvement on the base rule. That’s the only point I’m trying to convey.


----------



## cbwjm (Aug 27, 2018)

ClaytonCross said:


> So my only problem with Rangers really is that I could *not build a descent two-weapon fighting build*. This is admittedly an annoyance for me because I played a 2 handed ranger in 3.5 that was awesome and have a bit of nostalgia there, but it picked it then because I did and still feel that the two-weapon fighting always was a symbolic ranger thing in side and outside of D&D. INFACT, they still get it as a fighting style in this edition too.
> 
> They added some things like Zephyr strike that look like they are for Ranger melee moving in and out of enemies but on further inspection it only works on one attack and can be use with a ranged weapon making it a great spell for an archer to stay at ranged but not really that good in melee since its one strike and concentration.
> 
> ...



I dunno, I liked my dwarven dual wielding hunter. I thought he worked out really well with the various hunter abilities. I wouldn't consider the fighting style a trap at all.


----------



## Jester David (Aug 27, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> I don't know where you got the number 10% of fans in 2015, I also don't like your phrasing on how they "decided" the ranger was underpowered, as though it was a nearly arbitrary choice.
> 
> The numbers I thought we were working off of are the current number of players, and the current number of players playing Rangers, but now you are talking about a group of players from 3 years ago. So, we are assuming that people's opinions haven't changed, that more people have gotten upset with the ranger, that the sentiments of those people have not spread?
> 
> I will grant you, no fix will ever be perfect, there is no silver bullet, but just because we can't fix everything doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix anything.



I forget where I picked up the 10% number. They've said in podcasts that that's their threshold for reevaluating something from playtest feedback. 

Why am I talking about people playing from three years ago? Because that's when the satisfaction surveys were held. 2015. Three years and possibly five to ten million players ago. Waves or new players who are often more focused on the narrative and less on combat, who have different priorities than the audience in 2015.

It’s not people’s opinions that have changed. It’s the ratio of that audience. 
Us forum lurkers are no longer representatives. 



Chaosmancer said:


> You are completely right, we should focus on them as well.
> 
> Which classes are they, why are they unpopular, what kinds of things could we do to fix them if there are legitimate problems.
> 
> ...



First, this assumes you can “fix” the bottom classes mechanically. It’s likely the story and flavour of the classes be as much issue, if not more of an issue. 

Also, what’s the advantage of encouraging people to play the bottom most played classes? All that does is shuffle those classes up and other classes down. There are now new least played classes.
There’s no such thing as perfect balance. D&D doesn’t need to be like an MMO that is continually shifting and being tweaked. 



Chaosmancer said:


> It isn't a matter of who is at the bottom. At least, not to me. And it isn't all about combat power either.
> 
> A Beastmaster is fully outclassed in utility by any person who takes the Find Familiar Ritual spell. The Familiar has a telepathic link, you can see through it's eyes, it can be turned into any type of small animal that might be useful so that it can fly one day as a sparrow scouting the forest and sneak into the a bar as a rat the next, it can deliver touch spells and it has it's own initiative and takes it's own actions. This actually means there is a potential argument that Find Familiar is more useful in combat than a beast master's companion as well, since it can take the Help action to grant advantage to an ally.
> 
> The Beastmaster get's their companion 2 levels after someone can get Find Familiar, and it is far inferior as a utility option. An entire sub-class has half of it's potential usefulness outclassed by a single spell (Half because we are splitting Exploration and Combat, there are few pertinent ways to use either in Social situations).



Having seen familiars in combat… they don’t fare well. One hit and gone, followed by expensively replacement.

Also… if the problem is the beast master, why remake the entire ranger? Why not just play any of the other subclasses? There’s no talk of remaking the sorcerer just because the wild magic bloodline is unpopular.



Chaosmancer said:


> This isn't the slippery slope of "Now the Champion does 3.5 less DPR per day than the lowest class, so we need to buff them up followed by the Paladin who then falls behind on a per week basis" This is a severe mechanical problem.
> 
> Anecdotes are what they are, I understand that, but I have yet to hold a conversation with someone outside of this website who thinks the Beastmaster Ranger is perfectly fine. In just these past two weeks I've had a player in Dischord deride another player for choosing a Ranger (because they are too weak) and a conversation in the GiTP forums were again most people giving advice on the Beastmaster were urging the player to pick an entirely different class.
> 
> But I think the core of it comes to me right here.



I doubt a forum based on a comic making jokes related to a fifteen-year-old Edition is the best place to find out what the typical 5e player wants. 

Also, if someone at my game table derided another player for their choice of class, the balance of classes would be the least pressing issue.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 27, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Having seen familiars in combat… they don’t fare well. One hit and gone, followed by expensively replacement.




Which is no different to the animal companion.


----------



## Jester David (Aug 27, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Which is no different to the animal companion.



It's a pretty big difference, as animal companions can actually deal damage. Most have pretty high accuracy, and can have some decent AC. And they can take more than a single hit from the mookiest mook.

They are admittedly weak. I said so above. Which is a good reason to tweak beast companions, not rebuild the entire ranger.


----------



## ad_hoc (Aug 27, 2018)

Jester David said:


> It's a pretty big difference, as animal companions can actually deal damage. Most have pretty high accuracy, and can have some decent AC. And they can take more than a single hit from the mookiest mook.
> 
> They are admittedly weak. I said so above. Which is a good reason to tweak beast companions, not rebuild the entire ranger.




I think it is more of a problem with familiars. They should not be able to Help in combat.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 27, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Really, the people who disagree with you are "deserving hatred and contempt," which is what despicable means?



No, read what I wrote instead of putting words in my mouth.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 27, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Well, they did make a mistake in their overall approach to the Beastmaster: they probably would have been better off cutting out animal companians as a class feature entirely.



That could have worked. 

The PHB Beastmaster suffers from getting class features that are not nearly as strong as the designers think. By cutting out the rules regarding beasts, replacing them with "the secret is you can simply buy an animal at the fair", the subclass would likely have gained much more useful class features instead.

(I'm not sarcastic btw)


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 27, 2018)

Laurefindel said:


> The more I think about it, the more I believe it’s an absence of well defined animal handling rules that is at the root of the issue.
> 
> Were those rules made clear in the first place, and the beastmaster a clearly better animal handler, people would have reacted much better IMHO. I wish the difference between an intelligent ally and an animal companion had been made clearer and more coherently throughout the whole ruleset.



And I wish D&D would support BOTH a basic animal companion AND a fully-featured combat pet.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 27, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Do I have this straight?
> 
> WotC made a horrible mistake with the Beastmaster class.  To fix that mistake, they need to make the pet as durable as a PC and deal equal damage to what a PC can.  Additionally, in order to fix this mistake, they should put a disclaimer on the class that this class is totally unbalanced and you can only play it if your DM okays it.
> 
> ...




You'd make a poor game designer if that's your best shot. Don't quit your day job is all I'm saying. 

And yes.

I mean, no, not specifically your suggestion. 

But in general yes. Why not?


----------



## Hussar (Aug 27, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> You'd make a poor game designer if that's your best shot. Don't quit your day job is all I'm saying.
> 
> And yes.
> 
> ...




Well, I can think of several reasons why not.

1.  By your own admission, it's unbalanced.  There's zero chance they're going to publish that when it's clearly unbalanced.  You're granting a player, essentially, two characters, or about one and three quarters.  In a game where you have zero followers or anything like that.  There's a reason we don't have the Leadership feat anymore.

2.  They have already done a revised beastmaster and apparently, it's pretty functional.  What would be the point of going beyond that?  

3.  Fencing in a class by saying it's "too powerful" is no different than leaving it in the Unearthed Arcana.  It's still not going to be AL legal, by your own admission.  Essentially, what's the difference between leaving it in UA or putting it in an "official" book but then telling everyone that it's a broken class?

4.  What are they gaining here?  Where's the upshot for WotC? I get that it makes YOU happy, but, I'm sorry, who cares?  It's going to cause nothing but problems at tables as players will want to play this, but, the DM shoots the idea down, leading to endless whining and kvetching.  And all we're going to get is endless arguments about how to "fix" the class so this or that player's DM will let it be played at the table.

If this is what you consider good game design, I'm pretty happy to leave it in WotC's hands.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Aug 27, 2018)

> You're granting a player, essentially, two characters,




But Crawford is actually suggesting that the DM allow players to have allied animals as party members, instead of beastmaster rangers. In effect, giving the player two characters.


Which I'm fine with - its how it was done in 1st edition. But it needs to be spelled out. Perhaps there needs to be a supplement called "Pets and Sidekicks" giving full rules for secondary characters in 5e.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Aug 27, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> I dunno, I liked my dwarven dual wielding hunter. I thought he worked out really well with the various hunter abilities. I wouldn't consider the fighting style a trap at all.




Well if you got it to work, could you share your character build and give and example of how you played it without a ranged weapon and it worked out? What are these various hunter abilities that worked well? I gust spelled out all the problems I had just trying to build a character. My GM likes a gritty world where story is king but holding your own in a fight is a must or your a liability to the group because fights scale to the party number but not player skill or builds. I need every character to be story concentric to give the GM interesting toys to play with because he as a story GM but not be a paper character who just narrates a good fight but lives up to it in design and execution. 

... so please ..,. what did you do? I tried and failed would really like some feed back from someone who made it work.


----------



## Satyrn (Aug 27, 2018)

Paul Farquhar said:


> But Crawford is actually suggesting that the DM allow players to have allied animals as party members, instead of beastmaster rangers. In effect, giving the player two characters.
> 
> 
> Which I'm fine with - its how it was done in 1st edition. But it needs to be spelled out. Perhaps there needs to be a supplement called "Pets and Sidekicks" giving full rules for secondary characters in 5e.




More of y'all are echoing what I said early on this thread. I like it. I feel special.


. . . although the idea of a supplement of full rules is like the opposite of what I'd want. I prefer 5e when it stays away from specifics. I think it would've been enough to include well trained hunting dogs and pet jaguars in the equipment section, with a comment about how they reliably obey their master's command, in combat or not.

I mean sure, those of us who want more codified rules would want more than just that, and the DMG's optional rules would've been the perfect place for that. Or Xanathar's DM section, since it made clear it was just more optional rules, too.

There are definitely ways we can get what we both want.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 27, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> No, read what I wrote instead of putting words in my mouth.




I did. I literally wrote the definition of the words you wrote. There is no other rationale way to read what you wrote that I can think of. If you think it meant something different, I challenge you to explain how it did.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 27, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I did. I literally wrote the definition of the words you wrote. There is no other rationale way to read what you wrote that I can think of. If you think it meant something different, I challenge you to explain how it did.



I'm not responsible for what happens in your brain. Sorry.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 27, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> I'm not responsible for what happens in your brain. Sorry.




No but you're responsible for what you write here and you appear to be denying you wrote what you plainly did write. Let's review. You said, "Some people here are so desperate to avoid having to admit WotC can do one wrong, they're constructing a narrative where people are retconned into not expecting their animal companions to survive combat, or not to enter combat at all. It is despicable."

How is that anything other than you calling, "Some people here [who made an argument you have explained at length you disagree with] are despicable, meaning deserving of hatred and contempt."

That's what the words you wrote mean. I am offering you an opportunity to explain how it might mean something else, to clarify, or say it in a way that people might not interpret it that way. All you've responded with since is snark and sarcasm and insults, which would tend to reinforce the sentiment that you hold those who disagree with you on this topic in contempt.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Aug 27, 2018)

Paul Farquhar said:


> But Crawford is actually suggesting that the DM allow players to have allied animals as party members, instead of beastmaster rangers. In effect, giving the player two characters.
> 
> 
> Which I'm fine with - its how it was done in 1st edition. But it needs to be spelled out. Perhaps there needs to be a supplement called "Pets and Sidekicks" giving full rules for secondary characters in 5e.



Just write up "Bear" as a full race/class and have a buddy play it.


----------



## Satyrn (Aug 27, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Just write up "Bear" as a full race/class and have a buddy play it.




A grizzly bear barbarian who took the Path of Eagle Totem. Wait. I took a wrong turn there at the end. I guess I'm stuck playing an owlbear now.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 27, 2018)

*cough*

Yeah I sorta just left it at its underpowered state.


----------



## Satyrn (Aug 27, 2018)

Yunru said:


> *cough*
> 
> Yeah I sorta just left it at its underpowered state.




While it may be underpowered it's still (uh, sorry) smarter than the average bear.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 27, 2018)

Yunru said:


> *cough*
> 
> Yeah I sorta just left it at its underpowered state.




That's a bear of a cough you have there. Fur real.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 27, 2018)

Laurefindel said:


> Yeah, that’s when you have to differentiate between a wild animal and a character’s pet (read monster vs PC asset); the two won’t follow the same rules. This would not be the first and only asymmetrical element of 5e actually.
> 
> «but that’s completely meta, why would a beast play differently once it has a PC master !?! » you would say. You’d be right, it is very metagame-y, but no less than the present Animal Companion rules to be honest.
> 
> I’m not trying to backtrack what WotC has published; all I’m saying is that if this had been the rule from the beginning, then the PHB beastmaster would appear like an improvement on the base rule. That’s the only point I’m trying to convey.





And it is a fair point, I just see it as the ship having already sailed. When I first read your comment I thought you were talking about adding it back in as a new rule, which I think we agree wouldn't go over well. 

 [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION], I'm going to respond to things out of order. 



Jester David said:


> First, this assumes you can “fix” the bottom classes mechanically. It’s likely the story and flavour of the classes be as much issue, if not more of an issue.
> 
> Also, what’s the advantage of encouraging people to play the bottom most played classes? All that does is shuffle those classes up and other classes down. There are now new least played classes.
> There’s no such thing as perfect balance. D&D doesn’t need to be like an MMO that is continually shifting and being tweaked.




Ok, so if there are no mechanical fixes for them, but there are for the Beastmaster, does it then make sense why we are focused on the beastmaster instead of whichever classes are the "lowest" ?

Especially since from your reply, you have no idea what those classes are or why they may be lower. 

So to answer your question again about "why are we focused on this class instead of the lowest ranked ones" because this class has mechanical problems that we can fix. If other classes are lower ranked because fewer people like being buff support, or everyone still thinks they suck from previous editions, or they don't like the artwork next to the class, we can't fix that. We can fix the Beastmaster, which has measurable problems in it's mechanics. 



Jester David said:


> Also… if the problem is the beast master, why remake the entire ranger? Why not just play any of the other subclasses? There’s no talk of remaking the sorcerer just because the wild magic bloodline is unpopular.




Most of the discussion has been about fixing the Beastmaster. Personally, I like some of the changes that the Revised Ranger made to the Ranger mechanics, for example, I like their Hide in Plain Sight ability far more than the PHB one, but I recognize it isn't a neccessary change, just one I liked. 



Jester David said:


> Having seen familiars in combat… they don’t fare well. One hit and gone, followed by expensively replacement.




And they aren't supposed to be a combat option, but then again, you seem to get upset about people looking at the Ranger's Beast Companion as a combat option and not as a utility option. 

So, I guess you need to pick a path, are you going to defend the Beast Master's companion as a utility option over the Familiar, or are we going to look at the Beastmaster companion as needing a combat element to be a relevant sub-class feature? Because if you want to keep making comments like "players who are often more focused on the narrative and less on combat" to defend the Beastmaster, you need to be able to tell me why it is worth an entire subclass as a utiliy option. 



Jester David said:


> Also, if someone at my game table derided another player for their choice of class, the balance of classes would be the least pressing issue.




I agree, but it wasn't my table as a GM and no one seemed to get too upset that I could tell, so I didn't make it into a bigger thing by confronting the player about being rude. 

But, I think it does show that a lot of people see the entire ranger as being weak and not worth the time investment. 



Jester David said:


> I doubt a forum based on a comic making jokes related to a fifteen-year-old Edition is the best place to find out what the typical 5e player wants.




They have a robust 5e discussion forum, and it is the second biggest 5e forum I know about. The biggest being Enworld. 

But, I guess people don't count unless they are silent faceless masses who agree with you. Sorry, that was rude, but it isn't like there are a lot of places to hear what the "typical 5e player" wants if we aren't supposed to talk about any of the large internet communities built up around 5e.  




Jester David said:


> It’s not people’s opinions that have changed. It’s the ratio of that audience.




And this still bothers me a lot, they were working on a fix, but then they got an influx of players and decided that the thing didn't need a fix anymore. 

And, frankly, I call absolute BS on this idea that we got millions of new players who are vastly unconcerned with the mechanics of the game, and all of us on these forums are power-gamers who care more about the rules than the stories. 

I've introduced a lot of new people to the game, and I'm more willing to believe that they came wanting a story, and when the mechanics didn't back them up they just shrugged and said "well that's the way it is" and didn't want to rock the boat. It takes a while to get comfortable enough with these games to realize that the rules are guidelines that can be changed and not something that you absolutely need to work around. 

And, I just can't help but wonder how this supposed divide works in your head. I got into DnD because my Dad played the video games, and then I read the novels and watched the cartoons. I love RPGs as one of the most fascinating story-telling mediums around. But somehow, because I've played for more than 5 years I don't care about the story more than the guy whose friend told him to watch this show where they use funny voices and he liked it and wanted to try it out? 

New players are the same, whether they joined in the 80' the 00's or 2018. And they are still people and they still fit into the same rough categories we've been using for who knows how long. There is no great renaissance of DnD thought here.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Aug 27, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Just write up "Bear" as a full race/class and have a buddy play it.




I would play a bear. just saying. lol


----------



## Yunru (Aug 27, 2018)

But yeah, animal companion is only slightly less fragile than a familiar. 20 HP at level 5? A wizard's Firebolt can do that in one shot! Your standard foe with a weapon at that level does it with one shot every time they hit their average or above.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> But yeah, animal companion is only slightly less fragile than a familiar. 20 HP at level 5? A wizard's Firebolt can do that in one shot! Your standard foe with a weapon at that level does it with one shot every time they hit their average or above.




Yep, If your cool sending an animal companion to its death, an allied animal works even better than a Beastmaster companion.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

To emphasis, I just checked with the DMG. 20 hit points is the upper bound of a CR 2 monster's average damage _per round_.
Must be fun for the guy who choose a Panther as their animal companion:
"I send my animal companion to attack the Giant Boar while I engage at range."
"You and your companion damage the Giant Boar, it looks quite wounded. It retreats a bit, before charging at your Panther, goring it. Your Panther takes [rolls 4d6 + 3] 21 damage, and dies."

And that was the first encounter of the day.
You effectively have no subclass now, and have to hope that there's another Panther nearby.
And that was against a single CR 2 opponent... while at level 5.


----------



## Jester David (Aug 28, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> Ok, so if there are no mechanical fixes for them, but there are for the Beastmaster, does it then make sense why we are focused on the beastmaster instead of whichever classes are the "lowest" ?
> 
> Especially since from your reply, you have no idea what those classes are or why they may be lower.
> 
> So to answer your question again about "why are we focused on this class instead of the lowest ranked ones" because this class has mechanical problems that we can fix. If other classes are lower ranked because fewer people like being buff support, or everyone still thinks they suck from previous editions, or they don't like the artwork next to the class, we can't fix that. We can fix the Beastmaster, which has measurable problems in it's mechanics.



Well, which three classes do you think would be played less than the ranger? 
I guarantee your answer will be different than other people's. Mine will be different from yours that will be different from the OPs that will be different from Morrus'. 
Heck, even if you polled everyone on this board you might not get an entirely representative answer. 

Is there a mechanical fix for the ranger? 
Yes. That was never in doubt.
But no game is perfect. Every game has problems. The barbarian can't fight with two weapons. Saving throws break down at high levels. The monk's Way of Four Elements has resource management issues. The -5/+10 feats are too powerful. The champion and battlemaster are devoid of flavour. Wild Magic is very dependant on DM fiat.
If you start fixing _a_ problem with the game you risk going down the slippery slope of fixing the other issues. You set the precedent that you will revise the game and there's more pressure to implement additional fixes for other pet peeves and proud nails. 

Plus… is it an effective use of WotC's time to fix a single subclass? 
Why not just make _more_ subclasses? It takes largely the same amount of design time and playtesting time, only the net result is more total options. 

And outright new options don't risk causing confusion. 
Here's the thing, no matter how much they advertise the new class, not everyone will hear. So you will have people showing up at games and being told they're using the wrong ranger. DMs not allowing the new ranger as it's not in the PHB, and causing tension with the players. Players being pressured to upgrade at AL.
It just causes needless confusion for very little gain. 



Chaosmancer said:


> Most of the discussion has been about fixing the Beastmaster. Personally, I like some of the changes that the Revised Ranger made to the Ranger mechanics, for example, I like their Hide in Plain Sight ability far more than the PHB one, but I recognize it isn't a neccessary change, just one I liked.



Which is probably the point. The ranger maybe need a small tweak to its first level powers to make it more attractive, and a tweak to the beast master. But they've instead rewritten the entire class twice. 
And both times people still weren't entirely happy. I doubt there's a version of the ranger that will entirely satisfy everyone...



Chaosmancer said:


> And they aren't supposed to be a combat option, but then again, you seem to get upset about people looking at the Ranger's Beast Companion as a combat option and not as a utility option.
> 
> So, I guess you need to pick a path, are you going to defend the Beast Master's companion as a utility option over the Familiar, or are we going to look at the Beastmaster companion as needing a combat element to be a relevant sub-class feature? Because if you want to keep making comments like "players who are often more focused on the narrative and less on combat" to defend the Beastmaster, you need to be able to tell me why it is worth an entire subclass as a utiliy option.



It's pretty clearly meant to be a combat heavy option, given the 7th and 11th features are focused on attacking. It's just a combat option that _also_ has a LOT of utility uses and has a lot of flexibility that improves that. 

Most of the issues I see people complaint about with the beasts is their survivability and not their utility. The point of having an animal companion is having an animal run around and help you, akin to the hunter in Warcraft. It's the pet class.
Crazy magical abilities aren't necessarily part of that trope, and forcing every beast master to be a "warg" and magical doesn't support that character concept. Magical stuff like that are located in spells, like _beast sense_. (Which the ranger gets.) You opt into utility via spells.



Chaosmancer said:


> I agree, but it wasn't my table as a GM and no one seemed to get too upset that I could tell, so I didn't make it into a bigger thing by confronting the player about being rude.
> 
> But, I think it does show that a lot of people see the entire ranger as being weak and not worth the time investment.



Yeah… but your anecdotal evidence is just not supported. Because people ARE playing the ranger. If no one was playing the ranger than might be true, as the class being underpowered would actually be an issue. But since people do seem to happily be playing the class then it's apparently not a dealbreaker. 
Maybe more people would play the class. But maybe not. It's fixing a theoretical issue.



Chaosmancer said:


> They have a robust 5e discussion forum, and it is the second biggest 5e forum I know about. The biggest being Enworld.



Yeah, but it's still nothing compared to Reddit and Twitter and the Facebook groups. 
Forums are the social media of the previous generation. Newer and younger players engage in the internet in other ways. 
Looking at the D&D audience through the lense of forums is like looking at it through Usenet posts.



Chaosmancer said:


> But, I guess people don't count unless they are silent faceless masses who agree with you. Sorry, that was rude, but it isn't like there are a lot of places to hear what the "typical 5e player" wants if we aren't supposed to talk about any of the large internet communities built up around 5e.



You can't look at a single audience and then believe that's representative. Focusing only on forums is focusing on one particularly loud vocal minority. Which is a bad idea. You can't get decent feedback just from the people complaining the loudest. 
That's why WotC has the surveys and hires marketing companies. And looks at play data from partners like D&D Beyond, while also engaging with the fans on Twitter, Facebook, conventions, and more.

Try hitting https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/ or the D&D Facebook group for a while. Spend some time there rather than the forums. See what people are talking about on the #dnd hastag.



Chaosmancer said:


> And this still bothers me a lot, they were working on a fix, but then they got an influx of players and decided that the thing didn't need a fix anymore.



Fair enough. It bothers me that a lot of the really obvious subclasses haven't been updated. Like the blighter druid and a bard focused on music.
But everyone has pet peeves regarding the game and thinks that WotC should do something different. 



Chaosmancer said:


> And, frankly, I call absolute BS on this idea that we got millions of new players who are vastly unconcerned with the mechanics of the game, and all of us on these forums are power-gamers who care more about the rules than the stories.





Chaosmancer said:


> New players are the same, whether they joined in the 80' the 00's or 2018. And they are still people and they still fit into the same rough categories we've been using for who knows how long. There is no great renaissance of DnD thought here.



Audiences change, especially depending on how they're introduced to the game. 

The audience that started with D&D was introduced through the lense of wargaming. And the ones introduced via the novels and campaign settings in the late '80s and '90s saw the game entirely differently. And now we have streaming as a surprisingly large source of new players, and those games focus much more heavily on the storytelling and narrative side of the game
Unless you honestly think people's campaigns now are similar to how people played back in the '80s….

Heck, you can hear con organizer and former AL bigwig Paige Leiteman discuss the changing audiences here:
http://slyflourish.com/streaming_changes_op_paige_leightman.html
With this tweet being telling:
https://twitter.com/PaigeLeitman/status/1032270919115235328



Chaosmancer said:


> I've introduced a lot of new people to the game, and I'm more willing to believe that they came wanting a story, and when the mechanics didn't back them up they just shrugged and said "well that's the way it is" and didn't want to rock the boat. It takes a while to get comfortable enough with these games to realize that the rules are guidelines that can be changed and not something that you absolutely need to work around.



1) Have you introduced 10,000 people to D&D? Because that'd be a representative sampling of the audience.

2) Don't you think, that as you're introducing them to the game, YOU might be influencing their tastes and how they approach the game? 



Chaosmancer said:


> And, I just can't help but wonder how this supposed divide works in your head. I got into DnD because my Dad played the video games, and then I read the novels and watched the cartoons. I love RPGs as one of the most fascinating story-telling mediums around. But somehow, because I've played for more than 5 years I don't care about the story more than the guy whose friend told him to watch this show where they use funny voices and he liked it and wanted to try it out?



It's not that you might not care about the story. That's a logical fallacy (false dichotomy). It's that you might rank story lower than mechanics. 
When you ranking the importance of elements of a campaign (narrative, character acts, mechanics, combat, and the like), you might place some aspects higher than someone who was introduced to the game in a different way. How much value you place on those elements and the percentage of a game you want to be taken up by those elements. 


Regardless, at the end of the day… if people REALLY think the beast master is broken… they can just house rule it for their tables. Use one of the dozen on the DMsGuild or the UA one. Take what they want from the options given.
There are options out there. WotC doesn't need to do anything more.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

I get the feeling Jester may produce Hollywood movies. As the Nostalgia Critic often puts it "Well the chart says..."


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Aug 28, 2018)

ClaytonCross said:


> I would play a bear. just saying. lol




I know, right? A couple sessions ago I had the players play as elephants as part of one PC's dream quest. The response was, "Can we play elephants all the time?"


----------



## ad_hoc (Aug 28, 2018)

Jester David said:


> You can't look at a single audience and then believe that's representative. Focusing only on forums is focusing on one particularly loud vocal minority. Which is a bad idea. You can't get decent feedback just from the people complaining the loudest.
> That's why WotC has the surveys and hires marketing companies. And looks at play data from partners like D&D Beyond, while also engaging with the fans on Twitter, Facebook, conventions, and more.




In case people are wondering this is the same forum that has 10 threads on 'how to abuse Ceremony' and the 2 biggest threads right now are about whether or not D&D is a roleplaying game and developing house rules for making women have lower stats.

Certainly not a group that is representative of the D&D player base.


----------



## Jester David (Aug 28, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> In case people are wondering this is the same forum that has 10 threads on 'how to abuse Ceremony' and the 2 biggest threads right now are about whether or not D&D is a roleplaying game and developing house rules for making women have lower stats.
> 
> Certainly not a group that is representative of the D&D player base.




 
Which forum is that?


----------



## ad_hoc (Aug 28, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Which forum is that?




GitP


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> But yeah, animal companion is only slightly less fragile than a familiar. 20 HP at level 5? A wizard's Firebolt can do that in one shot! Your standard foe with a weapon at that level does it with one shot every time they hit their average or above.




A standard wizard has 22 hit points at that level 

In 1e they had 12 hit points at that level.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> To emphasis, I just checked with the DMG. 20 hit points is the upper bound of a CR 2 monster's average damage _per round_.
> Must be fun for the guy who choose a Panther as their animal companion:
> "I send my animal companion to attack the Giant Boar while I engage at range."
> "You and your companion damage the Giant Boar, it looks quite wounded. It retreats a bit, before charging at your Panther, goring it. Your Panther takes [rolls 4d6 + 3] 21 damage, and dies."
> ...




We've had a beastmaster ranger in our party since the book was released. His companion has never died, and he uses it in combat sometimes. Many people in this thread report they've never had an issue with them dying too often. So at what point does white room theorizing give way to actual experience? 

I agree the beastmaster could use a boost (and I proposed some). I don't agree the companions actually die as often as people who have literally never played them or seen them played keep speculating will happen.


----------



## Jester David (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> I get the feeling Jester may produce Hollywood movies. As the Nostalgia Critic often puts it "Well the chart says..."



Elementary school librarian actually. 

The thing is, I’m not so egotistical as to believe I am a “typical” D&D player. That I’m the norm.
It’s important to remember the Pareto Principal. I this instance, 80% of sales come from 20% of the audience. Or, in terms of tables, one person per table is the person who buys most books for everyone else. 

This means most D&D players engage with the game by playing. They don’t even buy the books (maybe not even the PHB). They don’t follow the news, they don’t visit the websites, they don’t listen to the podcast, and they certainly don’t visit forums. 
We represent a portion of the “twenty percent”. A percentage of a percentage. 

Catering to the small vocal minority of forumites doesn’t help the majority of fans. It’s just pandering to us.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Aug 28, 2018)

@_*Jester David*_
"Why not just make more subclasses? It takes largely the same amount of design time and playtesting time, only the net result is more total options."

I actually agree that an alternate pet ranger sub-class might be better than a revised ranger. 

The idea of making *subclass "Pack Leader"* that makes the companion job specific with multiple companions instead of higher health, that you could resurrect in ritual after every fight would be away to go... bit brutal imagery wise watching your pack die one at time every fight but a different feel for the similar job. 

Another *subclass alternate, "Great Beast Acolyte"* for those who want to have the build I wrote before but also want the companion to be the primary source of damage, being that its more powerful than your ranger it makes since that your actually serving the animal not the other way around, but you play as you paying tribute to the Great Beast it fights "for you" in thanks for your humble service... kind of like having a cat as a pet, you pay the bills so that you can gain honer of living in its house and feeding it in a timely manor.


The only class feature, I really feel is missing that the revised has is the extra damage verses favored enemies. I always though this symbolic, I know how to fight and hurt them because I have dedicated my life to being good at killing them was part of what made Rangers unique an cool in 3.5 and +2 damage lvls 1-4, +4 lvls 5-8, +6 lvls 9-12, +8 lvls 13-16, +10 lvls 17-20 was not broken and required you to stick to ranger levels. If this was added in *"Stalker" subclass* that would be cool. Alternately, you could *half those bonuses and make them apply to hit and damage instead*. I like that better because it means your favored enemies with Higher AC still need to fear you because you know how to hurt them while easier favored enemies with lower AC (that you would normally hit anyway) don't become trivial because your additional damage has gotten out of hand.  This would really bring back the two-weapon fighting style rangers and its still very fun and interesting for archers and single weapon fighting with green flame blade for example because the hit bonus means they all do more damage against their favored enemies.

I was a hunter of aberrations and dragons in 3.5 and it was always awesome when you had a moment for the ranger to say, "step as side, you can have the others but this mind flayer is mine!" Mean it and your party be like "Dude its all yours, go make us some calamari"... I might have sucked for the last 3 sessions but when those enemies came out it was awesome to be the right man for the job as a ranger. … So, far the most useful thing I have seen from rangers is scouting a quick path and food in the some places. Usually, the party knows more about nature and enemies even with the rangers advantage rolls, and in combat they are just another additive ranged damage. Its not as cool as when you run into a horde of zombies and the cleric steps up … "Gentlemen... if you would step aside I will clear our path of these unnatural  ...things" because *destroy undead* does play gentle with low CR undead. I really feel, this is the biggest lose to the 5e ranger. It is very much to me the same as if they had taken turn undead/destroy undead from clerics.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 28, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> You'd make a poor game designer if that's your best shot. Don't quit your day job is all I'm saying.





All told, over the course of this thread you have been pretty darned rude to people.   That's quite enough.

CapnZapp will be taking a break, folks.  Carry on without.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> A standard wizard has 22 hit points at that level
> 
> In 1e they had 12 hit points at that level.




A standard level 5 Wizard with 0 Constitution modifier has both A- ranged options and thus isn't expected to go into combat, B- the abilities to raise their Constitution score for more Hit Points, and C- Hit dice to heal with once they're stabilised.

1e's irrelevant, we're not playing 1e.



Mistwell said:


> I don't agree the companions actually die as often as people who have literally never played them or seen them played keep speculating will happen.




Odd that, because I did play a Beastmaster and _exactly that_ happened, except it was against a Bandit Chief and a crit was involved. I lost 5 companions in 5 combats before round 3. Then I stopped playing a Beastmaster.



Jester David said:


> Elementary school librarian actually.
> 
> The thing is, I’m not so egotistical as to believe I am a “typical” D&D player. That I’m the norm.
> It’s important to remember the Pareto Principal. I this instance, 80% of sales come from 20% of the audience. Or, in terms of tables, one person per table is the person who buys most books for everyone else.
> ...




On the contrary then, if only 20% is making them money, ignoring the 80% that don't care should be the profitable choice. So we're back to being a percentage, vs. a percentage of a percentage.


----------



## OB1 (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Odd that, because I did play a Beastmaster and _exactly that_ happened, except it was against a Bandit Chief and a crit was involved. I lost 5 companions in 5 combats before round 3. Then I stopped playing a Beastmaster.




Sounds like you were using your companion as a DPR boost every round.  That style will lead to companion death as certainly as putting a wizard into melee every round, especially at lower levels.  Did you try changing your play style before you stopped playing the Beastmaster?



Yunru said:


> On the contrary then, if only 20% is making them money, ignoring the 80% that don't care should be the profitable choice. So we're back to being a percentage, vs. a percentage of a percentage.




Absolutely not, because without the 80%, there is no one for the 20% to play the game with and the hobby dies a slow death.  That was the major pivot that 5e realized, they were focused on the wrong group of players for the previous 15 years.

It reminds me of what happened with apples in the early 2000s.  The 20% of people who shopped for apples were picking them based on how red they were, so farmers did everything they could to make the apples more red so they would be more likely to be picked in the store.  Meanwhile, they were becoming mushy and tasteless, so the people they were being bought for left them to rot in the fruit bowl, eventually leading the buyers to stop buying.  All of that went until one apple brand that wasn't very red but crispy and delicious came along and stole the market.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> A standard level 5 Wizard with 0 Constitution modifier has both A- ranged options and thus isn't expected to go into combat, B- the abilities to raise their Constitution score for more Hit Points, and C- Hit dice to heal with once they're stabilised.
> 
> 1e's irrelevant, we're not playing 1e.




Animal companions of beastmaster rangers have hit dice. It's right in the text.

Some of the better companions also have things like fly-by attack like the Pteranodon, which while not "ranged" is effectively like being ranged attackers.



> Odd that, because I did play a Beastmaster and _exactly that_ happened, except it was against a Bandit Chief and a crit was involved. I lost 5 companions in 5 combats before round 3. Then I stopped playing a Beastmaster.




I am sorry for assuming you had not, and that you lost so many companions. We have not had the same experience so obviously different tables differ on that topic. Though again, anyone with a d6 hit die and not a high Constitution may well have the same issues. The game is dangerous for those who fight.


----------



## Jester David (Aug 28, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Animal companions of beastmaster rangers have hit dice. It's right in the text.



The revised ranger?


----------



## Jester David (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> On the contrary then, if only 20% is making them money, ignoring the 80% that don't care should be the profitable choice. So we're back to being a percentage, vs. a percentage of a percentage.



No.

It's a good idea to put out products the 20% want and will buy. Otherwise the products won't sell. But the 80% still has to want to use them. If it negatively impacts their games, then they stop playing. 
But we're not even talking about a product that will sell. It's a free product that just costs WotC time and money for no return on investment for a product the vast majority of fans don't want and have no concern about to placate some vocal complainers online. 

Focusing only on the "hardcore" fans is how you shrink your audience and make the game less accessible for newcomers.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 28, 2018)

Jester David said:


> The revised ranger?




No the one in the PHB. The description for the animal companion in the PHB, "it can spend Hit Dice during a short rest to regain hit points."


----------



## Jester David (Aug 28, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> No the one in the PHB. The description for the animal companion in the PHB, "it can spend Hit Dice during a short rest to regain hit points."




Yeah, it retains its Hit Dice. But it's maximum hit points increase based on the ranger level. So it only every has 1-3 Hit Dice that won't do much to get its hp back to max. It really needs bonus Hit Dice...


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 28, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Yeah, it retains its Hit Dice. But it's maximum hit points increase based on the ranger level. So it only every has 1-3 Hit Dice that won't do much to get its hp back to max. It really needs bonus Hit Dice...




Almost all the ones people actually use have 2 HD with a con bonus or 3 hit dice. Often the only reason you'd use a 1HD animal is if your last one died and the only thing you can find in the mean time is a 1HD animal. 

I agree they could use more HD, equal to your Ranger level.  A feat could do that.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Though again, anyone with a d6 hit die and not a high Constitution may well have the same issues. The game is dangerous for those who fight.




Yes but no-one (myself very much included) goes "Oh cool, I can have a pet Panther!" and expect to not use it for combat?

The vanilla beastmaster is "You get a pet with a weak wizard's HP and a barbarian's combat option" but that's not what it advertises itself as. It advertises itself as "enter the fray with your ferocious pet along side you!"

The only vanilla beastmaster I'll ever play now is as a small race, as Mounted Combat (or something) can help mitigate it a bit, but it'd still be my last pick.


----------



## Jester David (Aug 28, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Almost all the ones people actually use have 2 HD with a con bonus or 3 hit dice. Often the only reason you'd use a 1HD animal is if your last one died and the only thing you can find in the mean time is a 1HD animal.
> 
> I agree they could use more HD, equal to your Ranger level.  A feat could do that.




A wolf is one of the better ones, and only has 2d8. So at 4th level they have 16hp and can only heal 2d8+2 without tapping into healer resources. And it only gets worse.

It’s the one problem I have with the beast master. The beasts should add Con to their bonus hp and get extra Hit Dice. But that’s a simple house rule fix...


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Yes but no-one (myself very much included) goes "Oh cool, I can have a pet Panther!" and expect to not use it for combat?




Sure, and in our game our beastmaster uses a panther in combat sometimes. He hasn't died yet, though it's been close sometimes. 

I do wonder if people are playing with "instant death" at 0 hit points for animal companions, or unconscious with death saving throws for them? We went with death saving throws. The DMG says, "Most DMs have monster die the instant it drops to 0 hit points, rather than having it fall unconscious and make death saving throws.  Mighty vilains *and special nonplayer characters* are common exceptions; the DM might have them fall unconscious and follow the same rule as player characters."

For us, an animal companion is definitely in the "special nonplayer character" as it's granted by a player character ability and is part of the party. So we have it go unconscious with death saving throws at 0 (though instant death from massive damage remains possible). 



> The vanilla beastmaster is "You get a pet with a weak wizard's HP and a barbarian's combat option" but that's not what it advertises itself as. It advertises itself as "enter the fray with your ferocious pet along side you!"




Does it? It says, "accompanies you on your adventures and is trained to fight alongside you." For us we've found the beast using the Help command is most effective, particularly once you hit 7th level and can command it to Help as a bonus action instead of as an action. Granting the ranger advantage on their attack is pretty helpful, is part of fighting alongside the ranger, but isn't really "ferocious pet entering the fray" as much as it's "pet distracting the prey while the prey gets hammered by the Ranger and focuses on that Ranger because it just got hammered by him, and not his mild nuisance of a distracting pet".  It's a subtle difference in language but in use we've found it somewhat meaningful.  



> The only vanilla beastmaster I'll ever play now is as a small race, as Mounted Combat (or something) can help mitigate it a bit, but it'd still be my last pick.




Aw come on, flying around on a Pteranodon that can make flyby attacks is awesome!


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 28, 2018)

My thoughts flow better responding to you out of order, I don’t know why. 



Jester David said:


> Well, which three classes do you think would be played less than the ranger?
> I guarantee your answer will be different than other people's. Mine will be different from yours that will be different from the OPs that will be different from Morrus'.
> Heck, even if you polled everyone on this board you might not get an entirely representative answer.




I agree, everyone will give different answers. 

So how is “There are classes that aren’t liked as well as the ranger is liked” a good rebuttal to the call to fix the ranger? If everyone has their favorites and least favorites and representative answers require massive amounts of polling to even get close… then why do you insist that those rankings should matter to us? If my opinion doesn’t matter unless it matches some massive, impossible to know super opinion… then your opinion doesn’t matter either. Plus, you admitted there is a mechanical fix, it isn’t even a question for you that that is possible, so this is just a smokescreen to hide behind “popularity”.




Jester David said:


> If you start fixing _a_ problem with the game you risk going down the slippery slope of fixing the other issues. You set the precedent that you will revise the game and there's more pressure to implement additional fixes for other pet peeves and proud nails.




Wow, is that your final answer?

We have bridges that are crumbling in America, but we shouldn’t fix those because then people might expect us to fix the sewage system that is far out of date, and then the power lines that are inefficient and where will it end?

This is literally the worst call to inaction I have ever heard. Don’t fix anything because you might be expected to fix more. In the effort of staying civil I’m going to stop putting my thoughts down on how I am reacting to that, but let us just say, I disagree that that is a good reason to not fix something. 




Jester David said:


> Is there a mechanical fix for the ranger?
> Yes. That was never in doubt.
> But no game is perfect. Every game has problems. *1*The barbarian can't fight with two weapons. *2*Saving throws break down at high levels. *3*The monk's Way of Four Elements has resource management issues. *4*The -5/+10 feats are too powerful. *5*The champion and battlemaster are devoid of flavour. *6*Wild Magic is very dependant on DM fiat.




1) Yes, they can. It may not be the absolute most efficient combat choice for them, but they can absolutely dual-wield and they can absolutely fight with sword and board. There is nothing stopping them and legitimate bonuses to doing so. Whether or not they are the most absolutely optimal solution is something else entirely. 

2) Fair enough, I’ve run into some wonkiness with saves at high levels. Not sure if there are good solutions to it though. It is just a result of not everyone’s saves improving at higher levels or improving at the same rate as enemy attacks get stronger. 

3) Very true, and they also deserve a fix. However, I’ve never been terribly interested in devising that fix, and I haven’t given it much thought. Also, it doesn’t seem to be a problem that has caught a large following, making it harder to have discussions about. 

4) Potentially, I’ve personally never had a problem with them, and I’ve seen far more people miss due to the decrease in accuracy than encounters broken do to the increased damage output. Also, easy enough to ban since all feats are optional anyways, so you could just say all feats except this select number are allowed, or alter them in ways that fit your campaign. 

5) Beyond easy enough to fix in my mind, if it is even a problem for you. I find flavor comes best in an intersection of class, subclass, race and background. Fighter’s give me plenty of flavor and Battlemasters come chock full of flavorful things, like that tool proficiency, that gives me plenty to latch onto and make my own. If a player came to me saying they liked the Champion but found the flavor lacking, we’d talk about what kind of story they were looking for and how to get there with the Champion. But, it has never come up, so I’ve never had to discuss with them. Usually, the people who choose Champion like the flavor they already found. 

6) Agreed, and it is an annoyingly bad problem. I think sorcerers need a complete rework as well, despite how often I get shouted down on that particular issue. However, this is a thread about the Ranger, so I won’t go into my calls for a Revised Sorcerer here and save that for when another thread about fixing the sorcerer comes up on the docket. 

So, I agree, no game is perfect. Some of these need mechanical fixes, some just need a little more effort on the DM’s part, and some aren’t even issues for some of us. 

Doesn’t mean that those things which are issues shouldn’t be addressed, or that we should dismiss calls to fix something just because other things are broken too. 



Jester David said:


> Plus… is it an effective use of WotC's time to fix a single subclass?
> Why not just make _more_ subclasses? It takes largely the same amount of design time and playtesting time, only the net result is more total options.
> 
> And outright new options don't risk causing confusion.
> ...




So if a car company released a car that performed poorly in wintery conditions, they shouldn’t look into solutions for that car design, they should just keep making more different car designs? 

Again, I don’t understand this desire to do nothing. Sure, maybe if this was a discussion about the difference between the Champion, Battlemaster, and Samurai where all of them could be seen as a similar style of play, but Beastmaster’s are supposed to be the epitome of the pet class and other than the Chainlock, they are the only subclass focused around permanent pets. You can’t release a new subclass that focuses on this style of play for the Ranger without in actuality just rewriting the Beastmaster to make it better. Sure, call it “the Spirit Shaman” but we’d all know what it is. 

And I’m not sure what kind of tension you think there is going to be. Just last night I was doing character creation for a new group, and someone wanted to go College of Swords. I told them to hold up a minute, because I thought I remember one of the old UA’s being a much better fit. Turns out I was wrong, but there was no tension or anger about it. They were grateful to make sure they had the best possible version of what they wanted to do. 

And we already have players who want to use the Revised Ranger and being told that it isn’t in the PHB (and no not even considered UA) and so they can’t use it. Boat sailed on that point, so not doing anything isn’t going to prevent it. 



Jester David said:


> It's pretty clearly meant to be a combat heavy option, given the 7th and 11th features are focused on attacking. It's just a combat option that _also_ has a LOT of utility uses and has a lot of flexibility that improves that.
> 
> Most of the issues I see people complaint about with the beasts is their survivability and not their utility. The point of having an animal companion is having an animal run around and help you, akin to the hunter in Warcraft. It's the pet class.
> Crazy magical abilities aren't necessarily part of that trope, and forcing every beast master to be a "warg" and magical doesn't support that character concept. Magical stuff like that are located in spells, like _beast sense_. (Which the ranger gets.) You opt into utility via spells.




Okay, so why are you so derisive of people complaining because “They only care about Combat power” it is meant to be a combat ability, and it underperforms?

You can’t say “people are fine with it because they don’t care about combat and prefer the utility options” then turn around and defend its poor utility compared to other options with “well, it is meant to be a combat option.”

Yes, beast survivability is a big issue, so is the absolutely bonkers action economy set up we currently have and how it can actually encourage people to not use the beast as a combat option. If it is a bad combat option and a bad utility option then it is a bad option pretty much in totality. And, if it was a single ability we might end up okay with that, it is an entire subclass that falls behind. That is pretty egregious. 

And you agree it is egregious, you said you agree there are mechanical fixes to this problem. You just don’t want to bother because we might end up fixing other things that are underperforming once we are done. Oh the humanity of reaching for something better. 



Jester David said:


> Yeah… but your anecdotal evidence is just not supported. Because people ARE playing the ranger. If no one was playing the ranger than might be true, as the class being underpowered would actually be an issue. But since people do seem to happily be playing the class then it's apparently not a dealbreaker.
> Maybe more people would play the class. But maybe not. It's fixing a theoretical issue. [/QUOTE
> 
> Since my Anecdote was for some people not liking the Ranger as is, you want to tell me that not everyone dislikes it. And because not everyone dislikes it I’m wrong that some people don’t like it, and since some people play it isn’t a real problem to fix.
> ...


----------



## OB1 (Aug 28, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> For us we've found the beast using the Help command is most effective, particularly once you hit 7th level and can command it to Help as a bonus action instead of as an action. Granting the ranger advantage on their attack is pretty helpful, is part of fighting alongside the ranger, but isn't really "ferocious pet entering the fray" as much as it's "pet distracting the prey while the prey gets hammered by the Ranger and focuses on that Ranger because it just got hammered by him, and not his mild nuisance of a distracting pet".  It's a subtle difference in language but in use we've found it somewhat meaningful.




Yes exactly!  An Owl at 6th level can swoop in, help on a ranged attack, then swoop out without taking AoO. 

Battlefield control using dodge as a bonus is also a powerful tactic. With a wolf next to a melee Ranger, now her opponent takes two AoOs if it leaves, one of which has advantage and the chance to knock prone.  At range, that Wolf taking dodge can make it harder for opponents to close. 

In the first few levels of the subclass, a wolf can prowl the edge of the battlefield, cutting off escape routes or providing a last line of defense for your squishy mage. It can also hold back in later fights if it took a hit in an early combat. 

Just because it’s not meant to go head to head in melee with your opponents doesn’t make it useless in combat.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

OB1 said:


> With a wolf next to a melee Ranger, now her opponent takes two AoOs if it leaves.




The companion can't take actions unless instructed to by the Ranger.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 28, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> And is a Wizard supposed to be a frontline combatant like the companion?




I don't know where that conception comes from. Nothing about the beastmaster's animal companion reads to me that it's "supposed to be a frontline combatant". They can be used in combat, but mostly to help the ranger and to do some special things like knocking foes down, poisoning foes, doing a flyby attack on foes, and those sorts of things the ranger has more difficulty doing. These usually set up advantageous situations that the ranger and his allies can take advantage of, but it really doesn't feel like a front line attacker. 



> Wouldn’t people who had seen them played have actual experience? At that point you have actual experience versus actual experience, which is where theorizing can be useful to see which scenario is more likely to occur, since both have been observed.
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of hard to find their HD if you don't know where to look, and since we are usually talking about 1 or 2 dice, it is very different from the 5 dice a player has and is expected to use.




What? How is it hard to look at their hit dice? And why are you still claiming 1 or 2 when in this very response we covered that it's 2 or 3? 



> And Flyby attack is great, as long as you don't care about damage since owls and Pteranodon's have pretty low damage. Also, until the enemy readies an attack to knock them out of the sky since they generally have poor AC and Hp too.




In my opinion animal companions for combat are best used for helping the ranger and other party members attack. But if you want them to do damage it's usually better to not just leave them out there in combat as if they are a fighter. 



> *Sarcasm* Another tax upon the ranger, let’s give them feats to allow them to heal their companions better too.   *End Sarcasm*




Most feats do three things and what I had in mind, if you're not going the Fighting Style or Spell route, would be a feat that would cover a lot of ground that people seem to complain about the most with th beastmaster ranger. Like let it open up higher CR animals, allow the ranger to take a hit intended for the animal instead, heal them, give them hit dice equal to your ranger level, etc..



> And, those 1 HD animals include some of those with Flyby attack, like the flying snake, which is kind of a cool companion to have. Of course, having something for the good of the story is against the ranger’s ethos right?
> 
> It’s almost like people are arguing different points based upon which point is better for the moment of defending the status quo.




My perspective is that the beastmaster could use some boosts and I have suggested three, but that it's not nearly as bad as people here often say it is right now. You've been dismissive of those fixes, and blatantly sarcastic, while simultaneously suggesting my position is to simply defend the status quo. You're not even internally consistent in your response to me (dismissing proposed fixes while claiming I am defending status quo). Which suggests it's almost like you're disagreeing with everything I say just to disagree. See how that works?


----------



## OB1 (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> The companion can't take actions unless instructed to by the Ranger.




From the class feature description. “The Beast never requires your command to use its reaction, such as when making an opportunity attack.”


----------



## Jester David (Aug 28, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> So how is “There are classes that aren’t liked as well as the ranger is liked” a good rebuttal to the call to fix the ranger? If everyone has their favorites and least favorites and representative answers require massive amounts of polling to even get close… then why do you insist that those rankings should matter to us? If my opinion doesn’t matter unless it matches some massive, impossible to know super opinion… then your opinion doesn’t matter either. Plus, you admitted there is a mechanical fix, it isn’t even a question for you that that is possible, so this is just a smokescreen to hide behind “popularity”.



The _point _is that deciding to fix the ranger because it scored poorly is entirely arbitrary. 
It's singling out a single class based on single data point (how unpopular the class is with a random bunch of nerds on the internet) and deciding that's the reason it should be remade. 
Again, you could just as easily pick other reasons to remake a class. It's the least popular. It's the least played. It has the least flavour. It's wasn't in OD&D. It doesn't match historical fiction.

You could justify reworking the monk because it doesn't match the rest of the western medieval European tone of the game.
You could drop the barbarian because the term "barbarian" is super not politically correct and is a poor descriptor of what the class actually does. 

You can *ALWAYS *find a reason to justify a change or a revision. That's easy.

At the end of the day, the PHB ranger is popular with the PLAYERS. It is being played. A lot. What a small fraction of a fraction of the audience whines about online _DOES NOT MATTER_. 


Right now, the ranger not breaking anyone's game. People who don't like the ranger have eleven (and soon to be twelve and then thirteen) other choices. Included a scout ranger. Or multiclass fighter/ druid. It's not ruining campaigns or causing problems at game tables. 

But the fix could. 
After all, two of the reddit posts you linked weren't people complaining about their ranges being weak. They were people asking if rangers were weak BECAUSE they saw people talking about the ranger and the revised ranger. The revised ranger is making things _WORSE_. It is causing people to question the game and causing people to wonder if their character could be doing *better*.


Could they fix it? Yes. They probably will with a 6th Edition of the game. 
Y'know, the equivalent of designing a new car because it performs poorly in wintery conditions. Recalling every single car of that model sold to improve it would be ridiculous. As would selling people a "fix" that they have to install themselves. The company waits for the car to run out its lifespan and uses the small bug as a selling feature for new cars. 

And I'm not ready for 6th Edition yet. 


And, really, there's a bajillion ranger fixes online. If people want a fix, they can find one. And likely ones that might be better than WotC's. It's not like WotC has some magical design powers that make everything they touch perfect. After all… they've taken three cracks at the ranger and people still seem unhappy. Do you REALLY think a fourth version of the ranger will solve everything. 
If you're not happy and satisfied with the ranger…. _MAKE YOUR OWN_. Take a bunch of the existing options and build a ranger that rubs you the right way. Stop looking to external sources for happiness.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I don't know where that conception comes from. Nothing about the beastmaster's animal companion reads to me that it's "supposed to be a frontline combatant".




So "Fight alongside" doesn't mean "fight alongside" it means "briefly help and then run away"?


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> The companion can't take actions unless instructed to by the Ranger.




" The beast never requires your command to use its reaction, such as when making an opportunity attack."

It's RIGHT THERE in the text. 

When I said earlier it helps if you've played the class, I meant it. It really does help.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> So "Fight alongside" doesn't mean "fight alongside" it means "briefly help and then run away"?




It means "fight alongside" as in, in my opinion, giving the help action to the Ranger it's next to. Which is the focus of the 7th level ability.  Running in, attacking the thing near the Ranger, and then running out using the disengage action as a bonus action from the Ranger is also another favored tactic from that 7th level ability.


----------



## Satyrn (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> The companion can't take actions unless instructed to by the Ranger.



I don't know if this is true. An opportunity attack isn't an action, at least not in the game mechanic sense where Dodge or Dash are actions, so whether or not it can take that opportunity attack without being commanded isn't addressed by the rules.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 28, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> I don't know if this is true. An opportunity attack isn't an action, at least not in the game mechanic sense where Dodge or Dash are actions, so whether or not it can take that opportunity attack without being commanded isn't addressed by the rules.




Of course it's not true, the text of the class itself contradicts what he said. "The beast never requires your command to use its reaction, such as when making an opportunity attack."


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> " The beast never requires your command to use its reaction, such as when making an opportunity attack."
> 
> It's RIGHT THERE in the text.
> 
> When I said earlier it helps if you've played the class, I meant it. It really does help.




My apologies, I keep forgetting because it never comes up, what with one or two hits taking out the animal companion.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> It means "fight alongside" as in, in my opinion, giving the help action to the Ranger it's next to. Which is the focus of the 7th level ability.  Running in, attacking the thing near the Ranger, and then running out using the disengage action as a bonus action from the Ranger is also another favored tactic from that 7th level ability.




Then it's not fighting, by definition.


----------



## Gradine (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> So "Fight alongside" doesn't mean "fight alongside" it means "briefly help and then run away"?




Well, you could use the deliberately obtuse and literal meaning of "fight alongside" or the much more broad and commonly understood usage of the phrase. I "fight alongside" my party's wizard, but they're not actually at my side hacking away at yuan-ti with me.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

Gradine said:


> Well, you could use the deliberately obtuse and literal meaning of "fight alongside" or the much more broad and commonly understood usage of the phrase. I "fight alongside" my party's wizard, but they're not actually at my side hacking away at yuan-ti with me.




They aren't?
They're still casting spells, removing hit points, disabling abilities, enhancing allies, etc.

Suggesting that Helping once per round is anything equivalent to that? That's being obtuse.


To approach this from another angle, lets look at the paragon of Ranger: Dritz.
Does he have his companion skulk away at the edges? No, his companion is right their, tearing orcs and whatnot limb from limb.


----------



## Eric V (Aug 28, 2018)

Gradine said:


> Well, you could use the deliberately obtuse and literal meaning of "fight alongside" or the much more broad and commonly understood usage of the phrase. I "fight alongside" my party's wizard, but they're not actually at my side hacking away at yuan-ti with me.




Well, maybe he thought it implied the animal companion doing a bit more than what a wizard's familiar does...

Whatever.  There's no convincing people.  The "high levels of dissatisfaction" with the class seem to have mysteriously become high levels of satisfaction; animal companions don't seem to die much when played; and the features of the Beastmaster are on par with every other Ranger subclass.  So, there's nothing to complain about.


----------



## Gradine (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> They aren't?
> They're still casting spells, removing hit points, disabling abilities, enhancing allies, etc.
> 
> Suggesting that Helping once per round is anything equivalent to that? That's being obtuse.




Suggesting that the Beastmaster Ranger's pet should be anything equivalent to an _entire other PC_ is being obtuse.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

Gradine said:


> Suggesting that the Beastmaster Ranger's pet should be anything equivalent to an _entire other PC_ is being obtuse.




Gee it sure is a good thing that I never even hinted at that then, isn't it?


----------



## cbwjm (Aug 28, 2018)

So much salt in this thread...


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> They aren't?
> They're still casting spells, removing hit points, disabling abilities, enhancing allies, etc.
> 
> Suggesting that Helping once per round is anything equivalent to that? That's being obtuse.
> ...




You mean his magical item...?


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> You mean his magical item...?




Yes, I mean the character who's animal companion (item or otherwise) inspired almost the entirety of the modern day beastmaster.


----------



## Eric V (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Yes, I mean the character who's animal companion (item or otherwise) inspired almost the entirety of the modern day beastmaster.




"Well, technically, that's a magical item...you _can't_ expect that to follow the same rules as a Ranger with a real, live animal companion, you know.  I know that's what inspired you to play a Beastmaster, but it's not the game's fault that you misunderstood what was going on with Drizzt."


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Then it's not fighting, by definition.




Not sure what you mean. The help action does this, "[You] aid a friendly creature *in attacking* a creature within 5 feet of you. *You feint, distract the target*, or in some other way *team up to make your ally's attack more effective*. " That's all part of fighting. And this seems like a kinda silly semantics argument. You're trying to do damage to the target, right? Fighting does damage to the target as the goal, right? That's what this all does. Helping the Ranger attack, or running in and attacking the target and running out without drawing an opportunity attack, that's all helping with fighting.


----------



## Gradine (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Gee it sure is a good thing that I never even hinted at that then, isn't it?




<Reads this post>

<Reads previous post>

<Reads this post again>

<Reads previous post again>

Make me understand how I'm misreading the following posts, devoid of saltiness:

You: "The PHB gives the impression that the animal companion will be fighting alongside you!"
Someone Else: "They do fight alongside me; here's some practical applications that aren't necessarily standing toe-to-toe with me that I've seen an animal companion provide assistance in combat"
You: "Not standing toe-to-toe I guess that means literally they're not fighting alongside you."
Me: "That's a pretty literal application of a term that I doubt was intended as such. I mean, I 'fight alongside' my buddy's Wizard."
You: "Wizards do so much! Are you saying that's anything equivalent to a beastmaster's companion?"
Me: "I don't really think a beastmaster's companion _should_ be anything equivalent to a Wizard or other PC, do you?"
You: "I never said they had to be!"

I'm just really struggling to figure out where the goalposts on this particular point are when you keep moving them.

I'm not saying that _you_ or others didn't have a different expectation of ranger companions based on either previous editions or particular bit of lore; but it's a real stretch to say that the 5e PHB reflects that same expectation.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 28, 2018)

Eric V said:


> Well, maybe he thought it implied the animal companion doing a bit more than what a wizard's familiar does...
> 
> Whatever.  There's no convincing people.  The "high levels of dissatisfaction" with the class seem to have mysteriously become high levels of satisfaction; animal companions don't seem to die much when played; and the features of the Beastmaster are on par with every other Ranger subclass.  So, there's nothing to complain about.




I've suggested three additions to the game to help. They've gotten almost zero response from people claiming the beastmaster needs help. Meanwhile we've had numerous claims like yours that people are saying there's nothing to complain about and everyone is happy (when I have seen almost zero people make that claim). I hope you can understand why the frustration might be mutual at this point.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

Gradine said:


> <Reads this post>
> 
> <Reads previous post>
> 
> ...




Because "Being able to fight and take a hit" is in no way "equivalent to a PC"?
The fact that I have to even explain that boggles the mind.

EDIT: Also you speak of "devoid of saltiness" then brutally murder the original meaning of what I say so much that it's a different point? Salt much?
Like, let's take this line: "Not standing toe-to-toe I guess that means literally they're not fighting alongside you."
Maaaan that sounds bad, but oh wait, let's look at what it actually is, without the bastardisation: "Not attacking or taking a hit well? I guess that means literally they're not fighting alongside you."
Oh look, that hyperbole about "equivalent" is your invention.


----------



## Eric V (Aug 28, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Not sure what you mean. The help action does this, "[You] aid a friendly creature *in attacking* a creature within 5 feet of you. *You feint, distract the target*, or in some other way *team up to make your ally's attack more effective*. " That's all part of fighting. And this seems like a kinda silly semantics argument. You're trying to do damage to the target, right? Fighting does damage to the target as the goal, right? That's what this all does. Helping the Ranger attack, or running in and attacking the target and running out without drawing an opportunity attack, that's all helping with fighting.




It's definitely a help, of a kind.  For sure.

He'd probably be better off being a Hunter with the Arcane Initiate feat for this purpose, but yeah, advantage helps.

Can you see that it's a little underwhelming, compared to stories people might have read about warriors "fighting alongside" their companions?


----------



## Eric V (Aug 28, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I've suggested three additions to the game to help. They've gotten almost zero response from people claiming the beastmaster needs help. Meanwhile we've had numerous claims like yours that people are saying there's nothing to complain about and everyone is happy (when I have seen almost zero people make that claim). I hope you can understand why the frustration might be mutual at this point.




There's been quite a few responses that there's nothing to really fix since the class seems to be popular.  

As for your fixes, with respect, while they do seem like they might be of help, they also seem in some ways to be a "tax" on the Beastmaster specifically, in that the other subclasses don't need them to make their particular subclass abilities effective.


----------



## Gradine (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Because "Being able to fight and take a hit" is in no way "ewuivalent to a PC"?
> The fact that I have to even explain that boggles the mind.




1) @_*Mistwell*_ has already covered the numerous ways in which various animal companions are "able to fight", just not in the meat-shield manner you seem to hold as the only way to accomplish this
2) At what point is "being able to take a hit" necessary to be engaged in a fight? My wizard buddy can't really take many hits either, after all.

Again, it is clear that you have a very precise expectation for what a Ranger's companion is supposed to be able to do. What is also clear (and the issue that is actually being discussed at the moment) is that there is nothing in the overall text of this current edition of D&D that would have reasonably given you that expectation with regards to the Beastmaster Ranger. You are instead relying on overly literal interpretations of this text (and the arguments of those responding to you) to try to make some obtuse semantic point. It is not working.

Again, @_*Mistwell*_ has pointed out that there are plenty of places across the internet that have taken the impetus to build a Beastmaster more in line with your expectations, and that there's no immediate reason to think those efforts wouldn't be any worse than what the folks at WotC would surmise (especially given the level of opinion you and others in this thread appear to hold regarding the company and its employees) and they've already even offered a couple of suggestions themselves.

That said "failing to meet your specific expectations for the class" and "failing to meet the expectations presented within its own description" are two very different things. To say nothing of the gap between either of these and, say, "objectively broken at a fundamental level" for instance.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

Gradine said:


> 1) [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] has already covered the numerous ways in which various animal companions are "able to fight", just not in the meat-shield manner you seem to hold as the only way to accomplish this



None of which involve _actually fighting_. "Oh cool, can I have my panther leap at him and try to bite his face?" "You cooould, but it'd be better if he just played distraction." "Wow. So cool. End sarcasm."


> 2) At what point is "being able to take a hit" necessary to be engaged in a fight? My wizard buddy can't really take many hits either, after all.



The point where every animal companion except... two? Except two are melee creatures, and thus can't do the whole "I can be safe from damage by being too far away to easily be hit?" Sure, your wizard buddy can't really take many hits, but they also don't have to be _right next to the opponent_ to contribute.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Not sure what you mean. The help action does this, "[You] aid a friendly creature *in attacking* a creature within 5 feet of you. *You feint, distract the target*, or in some other way *team up to make your ally's attack more effective*. " That's all part of fighting. And this seems like a kinda silly semantics argument. You're trying to do damage to the target, right? Fighting does damage to the target as the goal, right? That's what this all does. Helping the Ranger attack, or running in and attacking the target and running out without drawing an opportunity attack, that's all helping with fighting.




All of which boils down to... helping someone else. That's not fighting, that's supporting.
Yay, my supposed-to-be-kickass Panther can sit on the sidelines and be a distraction. Truly that's what having a animal companion is about, being the equivalent of _True Shot (True Strike?)_.


----------



## OB1 (Aug 28, 2018)

[MENTION=6780961]Yunru[/MENTION] would the following feats and spells give you what you want?

Feat - greater companion.  You can now train large creatures and those of a CR up to 1/2. If you have 8 levels in the Ranger class, the CR of your companion can be 1. 

1st Level Spell - Hunting Party- concentration, 1 minute. You gain an additional action that you can use only to issue commands to your beast companion. Your companion gains 5 temp hit points (+5 for each additional spell slot level) and gains a 1d4 bonus to its damage rolls. 

2nd level spell - Revive Beast - you touch a beast that has been dead for less than a minute. It returns to life with 1 HP. 

3rd - Reinvigorate Beast, bonus Action, range 60’, you voice brings vitality back to a beast. It regains all lost hit points and can immediately move up to its speed without taking an opportunity attack.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 28, 2018)

Eric V said:


> It's definitely a help, of a kind.  For sure.
> 
> He'd probably be better off being a Hunter with the Arcane Initiate feat for this purpose, but yeah, advantage helps.
> 
> Can you see that it's a little underwhelming, compared to stories people might have read about warriors "fighting alongside" their companions?




Yes. Not sure what part of "Here are my three suggestions for adding an additional fighting style, some additional spells, and an additional feat to the game to help address some of these issues with the beastmaster" is unclear. I've repeated them. The same group of people either are dismissive or simply ignore those suggestions, and then repeat "Why can't you see why we think this needs help?!?! Why do you guys keep saying there is no issue here?!"


----------



## Eric V (Aug 28, 2018)

OB1 said:


> [MENTION=6780961]Yunru[/MENTION] would the following feats and spells give you what you want?
> 
> Feat - greater companion.  You can now train large creatures and those of a CR up to 1/2. If you have 8 levels in the Ranger class, the CR of your companion can be 1.
> 
> ...




Why do they have to be spells or feats?  Why can't they just be subclass features?  Otherwise, it's a tax on the subclass, no?


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> None of which involve _actually fighting_. "Oh cool, can I have my panther leap at him and try to bite his face?" "You cooould, but it'd be better if he just played distraction." "Wow. So cool. End sarcasm."
> The point where every animal companion except... two? Except two are melee creatures, and thus can't do the whole "I can be safe from damage by being too far away to easily be hit?" Sure, your wizard buddy can't really take many hits, but they also don't have to be _right next to the opponent_ to contribute.




7th level ability. For all animal companions.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Yes. Not sure what part of "Here are my three suggestions for adding an additional fighting style, some additional spells, and an additional feat to the game to help address some of these issues with the beastmaster" is unclear. I've repeated them. The same group of people either are dismissive or simply ignore those suggestions, and then repeat "Why can't you see why we think this needs help?!?! Why do you guys keep saying there is no issue here?!"




Because they all require additional resources to fix something wrong with the base class?
That's not a fix, that's a tax.

And would still be the same as admitting a fix was needed if WotC did it.


----------



## Eric V (Aug 28, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Yes. Not sure what part of "Here are my three suggestions for adding an additional fighting style, some additional spells, and an additional feat to the game to help address some of these issues with the beastmaster" is unclear. I've repeated them. The same group of people either are dismissive or simply ignore those suggestions, and then repeat "Why can't you see why we think this needs help?!?! Why do you guys keep saying there is no issue here?!"




I am pretty sure at least Chaosmancer addressed them...I'm not trying to criticize, they're all fine as ideas, but the fighting style comes on at a different level than when they would get the companion, and the feats and spells are "taxes" that the Beastmaster has to use to make his subclass abilities be on par with the other subclasses who can use their feats and spells for additional things.

Like I asked someone else: why couldn't those ideas just be subclass features?


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

OB1 said:


> [MENTION=6780961]Yunru[/MENTION] would the following feats and spells give you what you want?
> 
> Feat - greater companion.  You can now train large creatures and those of a CR up to 1/2. If you have 8 levels in the Ranger class, the CR of your companion can be 1.
> 
> ...




The feat not really? It does nothing for their ability to survive, which is the real issue. It would be cool though, if said issue weren't an issue that'd still rear it's head.

The 1st level spell? A bit, because tempHP. I'd be concerned that the additional action might make it too good though.

The 2nd level spell? Kinda but kinda not? Imagine a companion with 40 HP (level 10 ranger). It has 2d8 hit dice to heal itself of 39 damage. But it's still better than permanently losing the creature, especially if the party travels a lot.

The 3rd level spell? Most definitely, but it'd be nice to not have to _need_ it almost every fight.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> 7th level ability. For all animal companions.




Requires them to not attack. Back to "Not fighting". And if you say it can contribute better by blocking exits... so can a brick wall. Hell, a brick wall would take longer to get around. Can I have a brick wall as my animal companion please?

Because it'd be as exciting, and at least I'd get some RP out of the curiousness of it.


----------



## OB1 (Aug 28, 2018)

Eric V said:


> Why do they have to be spells or feats?  Why can't they just be subclass features?  Otherwise, it's a tax on the subclass, no?




It’s not a tax, it’s an expansion of abilities. Not everyone would take them, only those who want their companion to have greater combat abilities than currently provided. Why wouldn’t that come at a price?  

And if the price isn’t worth it, than what you are saying is that you don’t really want a better companion for some character concept you have in your head, you just want more power. 

As to why not subclass features?  Sure, as part of a new subclass it could work, but, as this thread has discussed for weeks now, the Revised Ranger will not be happening. 

Seems spells and feats seem a more likely way to get this addressed given that announcement.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

OB1 said:


> It’s not a tax, it’s an expansion of abilities.



When it's an expansion of abilities that should be already expanded, it's a tax.

I feel the need to mention that that also logical extends to "If it's an expansion of abilities that feel like they should already be expanded, it feels like a tax."


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Because they all require additional resources to fix something wrong with the base class?
> That's not a fix, that's a tax.
> 
> And would still be the same as admitting a fix was needed if WotC did it.




It's not a tax because a majority of people playing the class are already fine with it. It's additional options for those who want something more out of this class, without having to mess with what already works for a fair number of people. Generally adding more options rather than replacing what exists is the better route, as it not only doesn't cause that sense that you spent money on an incomplete product, but it also doesn't then result in a bunch more people being upset that you just "fixed" what was not broken for them. 

And I don't think this is really an issue of "admitting" anything. Who cares if they "admit" something? What purpose does that serve? Some people want the beastmaster to do more (myself included) and I think some options to let them do more without altering what already exists is a good route. I'm hoping they do as well, and said as much recently to Crawford on Twitter.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> It's not a tax because a majority of people playing the class are already fine with it.




Ah yes, a "fact" derived from numbers from a single source of which the sample isn't explained, and that doesn't even _mention_ the subclass.


----------



## Gradine (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> None of which involve _actually fighting_. "Oh cool, can I have my panther leap at him and try to bite his face?" "You cooould, but it'd be better if he just played distraction." "Wow. So cool. End sarcasm."




Again, I suggest you are being far too literal in what you consider "fighting". There's a lot more involved in a fight than dealing direct physical damage.



> The point where every animal companion except... two? Except two are melee creatures, and thus can't do the whole "I can be safe from damage by being too far away to easily be hit?" Sure, your wizard buddy can't really take many hits, but they also don't have to be _right next to the opponent_ to contribute.




Many of which have some sort of support or maneuverability options, typically don't present as the most immediate threat when they remain in combat, and can hold their own against individual low-level opponents.

I acknowledge there's probably a middle ground between what exists now and "the equivalent to another PC" that would make a lot more folks a lot more happy without making the Beastmaster too overpowered and/or too fiddly within the action economy, but... other than the HD fix mentioned multiple times in this thread I'm not sure what that looks like.


----------



## Eric V (Aug 28, 2018)

OB1 said:


> It’s not a tax, it’s an expansion of abilities. Not everyone would take them, only those who want their companion to have greater combat abilities than currently provided. Why wouldn’t that come at a price?
> 
> And if the price isn’t worth it, than what you are saying is that you don’t really want a better companion for some character concept you have in your head, you just want more power.
> 
> ...




Of course I want more power for the companion...it dies far too easily!!  Why would that be a problematic motivation to ask for a rule change??  "A better companion for some character concept I have in my head" (which, apparently, is all right as a motivation) necessarily includes greater survivability for the companion.

If the player setting out to play a Beastmaster finds out that his best option is to have it "Help" (and this only comes on at 7th level), and that he would have been just as well off with an owl familiar (a 1st level ritual), then that sucks.  He should have played a Hunter (or whatever) with the Arcane Initiate feat.

As written, his subclass features are behind the subclass features of the other Ranger subclasses.  Remember, we're not talking about "ribbons" here; but actual class mechanics.  So to fix them with spells or feats (the latter of which are not allowed by some DMs) still puts them behind the other subclasses.  That's why it's a tax.

I understand there's no good marketing reason for WotC to address this though, and that marketing has to take priority over everything else.

I think people should just play the Revised Ranger as is; it's overpowered, but not to paladin-levels.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Requires them to not attack. Back to "Not fighting". And if you say it can contribute better by blocking exits... so can a brick wall. Hell, a brick wall would take longer to get around. Can I have a brick wall as my animal companion please?
> 
> Because it'd be as exciting, and at least I'd get some RP out of the curiousness of it.




I already explained the fighting aspect. Your definition of "fighting" appears to differ from that of many others, and also seems pointless as they accomplish the same goal as your own definition of fighting. But even if you want to do the thing you insist means "fighting" you can, you just should pick the right animal companion. There are many that can pull off an attack with fairly low risk to themselves.  For example, Giant Poisonous Snake has reach so can attack, has great AC, and has the best to hit value with attacks that cause great damage due to poison.  Another option is the Flying Snake - also a great AC, great damage due to not allowing a save against its poison damage, flying speed with flyby attack, blindsight, a swim speed, etc.  There are more than can do things which enable either the target to be disabled, or to move in attack and move away, safely.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

Gradine said:


> Again, I suggest you are being far too literal in what you consider "fighting". There's a lot more involved in a fight than dealing direct physical damage.



Right, but what you don't think when you hear "animal companion" is "hireling with slightly more health". Because that's exactly what's being proposed: they're fine because you can play them the same way you would hired help that got caught in the battle.





> Many of which have some sort of support or maneuverability options, typically don't present as the most immediate threat when they remain in combat, and can hold their own against individual low-level opponents.



There are? Just looking through the PHB we've:
The bat. Keen Hearing, but no combat support options. 1 hp and no manoeuvrability options beyond flight.
The boar. Strictly melee smash-in-the-face, with added bonus if they charge right at the enemy. Dead in seconds.
The cat. Keen Smell, that's it.
The constrictor snake. It can constrain if it hits, would be good if it didn't die so easy.
The frog...
The hawk. It has Keen Sight and flying. Not bad utility. 1 HP (so 4x level at all times) and tiny though, so expect it to get eaten by a bigger predator.
The mastiff. Keen Hearing and Smell. No hit dice to speak of, so another "keep out of combat at all times."
*The owl.* Flyby, our first manoeuvrability option!
The panther. It can knock prone... if it charges straight at the things that can one/two-shot it.
The poisonous snake. Oh hey, I guess you could milk it for venom to apply to your weapons with a generous DM.
The rat. Keen Smell and vilified by civilisation.
The raven. It can mimic stuff, which can be useful.
The wolf. Pack Tactics! Great if it's adjacent to an enemy. With no way to safely retreat.

And that's it.
1 manoeuvrability option, and a couple of support options that mostly require charging straight to the animal companion's death.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I already explained the fighting aspect.



No, you explained how the Help action can count as fighting by supporting another.
No amount of Help action will, say, let a Panther pounce on it's prey.
And as others have mentioned, it only works as a tactic once you hit level 7 with the exception of _very_ few creatures, one of which is quite possibly extinct. So yay, my subclasses doesn't do anything before level 7 except die very quickly.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Right, but what you don't think when you hear "animal companion" is "hireling with slightly more health". Because that's exactly what's being proposed: they're fine because you can play them the same way you would hired help that got caught in the battle.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Maybe you should read a guide.
This one is pretty good as well.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Maybe you should read a guide.




No?

If it's in the MM it's up to the DM whether it's available.

Furthermore, if you need a guide just to be able to pick a _usable_ companion, that should be the biggest red flag you can get short of the class literally causing players to explode.


----------



## Gradine (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Right, but what you don't think when you hear "animal companion" is "hireling with slightly more health". Because that's exactly what's being proposed: they're fine because you can play them the same way you would hired help that got caught in the battle.




Honestly, my first thoughts when I hear "animal companion" are Aladdin and the PS2 cult action game Mark of Kri. Also, you know, _The Beastmaster,_ who, yes, fights alongside a tiger, but for my money gets a lot more mileage out of his eagle and ferret companions. Helpful in a pinch but not something I'd expect to fight right at my side against anything more threatening that, say, a bugbear.

Also, if I'm fighting a bugbear alongside my trusty wolf, and the bugbear starts attacking my wolf because he sees _it_ as the bigger threat, there's something that's gone horribly wrong and has little to do with the construction of the class or its features.



> And that's it.
> 1 manoeuvrability option, and a couple of support options that mostly require charging straight to the animal companion's death.




I exaggerated a bit on the straight maneuverability options (though you are discounting how useful the prone condition for getting in and out of harm's way). [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] once again clearly demonstrates some of the other ways different animal companions can be handy in a fight, but you've helpfully ignored those (and basically everything else I said).

Again, what you seem to be asking for is something at least approaches the same level of combat functionality and survivability as another PC. I posit that that is an unreasonable request.


----------



## Gradine (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> No?
> 
> If it's in the MM it's up to the DM whether it's available.
> 
> Furthermore, if you need a guide just to be able to pick a _usable_ companion, that should be the biggest red flag you can get short of the class literally causing players to explode.




Your definition of "usable" is not universal.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> No?
> 
> If it's in the MM it's up to the DM whether it's available.
> 
> Furthermore, if you need a guide just to be able to pick a _usable_ companion, that should be the biggest red flag you can get short of the class literally causing players to explode.




I don't need a guide to be able to pick a usable companion. Most people in this thread don't need a guide to pick a usable companion. But given your post above, which didn't mention most of the usable companions, it seemed YOU might get something from a guide. 

Flying snake and Giant Poisonous Snake (which are both great companions) are both in the Basic rules by the way. You didn't mention either, though they're often considered the best companions to do the thing you seem most interested in doing with animal companions, which is attacking directly.

I say again - it might be helpful if you got more experience playing this class you're so upset about. I am trying to help you get the most out of this class you think isn't doing enough, and your responses seem to be routinely dismissing anyone who tries to help unless that help is replacing the existing class. Maybe consider other ways?


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

Gradine said:


> Also, if I'm fighting a bugbear alongside my trusty wolf, and the bugbear starts attacking my wolf because he sees _it_ as the bigger threat, there's something that's gone horribly wrong and has little to do with the construction of the class or its features.



You're right, but when the bugbear attacks the wolf because it's the softest target...



> Again, what you seem to be asking for is something at least approaches the same level of combat functionality and survivability as another PC. I posit that that is an unreasonable request.



And you'd be half right!
Half right because anything more than "dies in 1.5 hits" is approaching a player's level of "I can survive combat". Half wrong because that's in no way unreasonable.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I don't need a guide to be able to pick a usable companion. Most people in this thread don't need a guide to pick a usable companion. But given your post above, which didn't mention most of the usable companions, it seemed YOU might get something from a guide.




It didn't mention them because, as I said, I was drawing from the Player Handbook. You know, the thing most players will look to first.



Mistwell said:


> I am trying to help you get the most out of this class you think isn't doing enough, and your responses seem to be routinely dismissing anyone who tries to help unless that help is replacing the existing class. Maybe consider other ways?





That'd be because I'm not asking for help getting the most out of the subclass, I'm making the case that the subclass is too weak as is? The fact that you can't just pick an option that sounds thematic and run with it is a major warning sign. And I'm not talking "what do you mean my fish can't swim on land" I'm talking "8 out of all beasts in all books are rated better than average. 9 are considered average. Oh and that requires they be available in your area."


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> It didn't mention them because, as I said, I was drawing from the Player Handbook. You know, the thing most players will look to first.




This is a bad excuse. Both I mentioned are in the free Basic rules everyone has access to. It's obvious they are fair game for this discussion and if you're going to reduce the discussion down to a false claim "you can only choose from the three directly mentioned in the PHB as examples" even though you yourself didn't do that when listing animal companions, then I think we all know where you're coming from at this point. Is this a conversation you're having, or are you just trying to hit an "I win" button on an argument by defining the rules to say you win?


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> This is a bad excuse. Both I mentioned are in the free Basic rules everyone has access to. It's obvious they are fair game for this discussion and if you're going to reduce the discussion down to a false claim "you can only choose from the three directly mentioned in the PHB as examples" even though you yourself didn't do that when listing animal companions, then I think we all know where you're coming from at this point. Is this a conversation you're having, or are you just trying to hit an "I win" button on an argument by defining the rules to say you win?




Hyperbole much?

I drew from the Player's Handbook because that's what I have _on hand_.

But sure, resort to personal attacks.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Hyperbole much?
> 
> I drew from the Player's Handbook because that's what I have _on hand_.
> 
> But sure, resort to personal attacks.




You don't have the basic rules on hand? And when asked, you said it was what people would use even though I've never seen a discussion of the beast master animal companions that didn't at least include the basic rules?

Can you agree these are fair game or not?


----------



## Gradine (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> If it's in the MM it's up to the DM whether it's available.




[citation needed]



Yunru said:


> You're right, but when the bugbear attacks the wolf because it's the softest target...




Why would any creature of animal intelligence or higher target an animal when there's a moderately armored, weapon wielding man in their face? Especially for those creatures you've deemed "useless" outside of their ability to Help, such as a weasel or a monkey?

There are some creatures that no animal companion should be tangling with (ie, any powerful creature with an AOE effect), but outside of that, if you find your DM targeting your companions because they're the "softest", I would suggest that there is a problem there, but it lies outside of the class design.



> And you'd be half right!
> Half right because anything more than "dies in 1.5 hits" is approaching a player's level of "I can survive combat". Half wrong because that's in no way unreasonable.




By 3rd level (when the companion makes an appearance, mind you) most melee PCs can survive quite a bit more than 1.5 hits, unless they are routinely tangling with only individual creatures in the Deadly encounter range. Something offered by a subclass feature (even a subclass's signature feature) should not provide anything remotely close to a "second PC" in terms of either combat ability or survivability. 

An animal companion is meant to be used strategically and support your own abilities and powers, not provide another party tank. That is completely unreasonable.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

Gradine said:


> An animal companion is meant to be used strategically and support your own abilities and powers, not provide another party tank. That is completely unreasonable.




And again with the false claims. There's a world of difference between "Oh hey, I don't die in the first round" and "Hit me all you want, it won't do a thing!"
I've never once _attempted_ to claim the latter.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> You don't have the basic rules on hand? And when asked, you said it was what people would use even though I've never seen a discussion of the beast master animal companions that didn't at least include the basic rules?
> 
> Can you agree these are fair game or not?




Of course they're fair game? I never claimed otherwise?
I claimed fours things total:
The animal companion is seriously lacking in survival ability.
I am drawing only from the PHB.
The PHB is what I have on hand.
The PHB will be the first place checked by a new beastmaster.


----------



## Gradine (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> And again with the false claims. There's a world of difference between "Oh hey, I don't die in the first round" and "Hit me all you want, it won't do a thing!"




Any animal companion that would die in the first round should never be seen a viable target by anything dangerous enough to kill it in the first place. 



> I've never once _attempted_ to claim the latter.




I am trying to accurately gauge exactly where you fall on the spectrum between "animal companion as it exists now" and "same-leveled PC" and you are not providing much in the way of detail there (not to mention completely over-exaggerating the usefulness of the former).


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

Gradine said:


> [citation needed]




I can do one better than that, I can expand that claim to _all_ animal companions beyond the first and provide citation.
Page 93 of the Player's Handbook states:
"If the beast dies, you can obtain another one by spending 8 hours magically bonding with another beast that isn’t hostile to you, either the same type of beast as before or a different one."
Emphasis on _another beast_. Which means it's up to your DM to decide if there is a beast of that sort around to bond to. (Something the revised ranger _also_ fixed.)


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

Gradine said:


> I am trying to accurately gauge exactly where you fall on the spectrum between "animal companion as it exists now" and "same-leveled PC" and you are not providing much in the way of detail there (not to mention completely over-exaggerating the usefulness of the former).




You could of just asked. Revised Ranger Beastmaster hit dice. (And I think you mean under-stating?)


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Yes, I mean the character who's animal companion (item or otherwise) inspired almost the entirety of the modern day beastmaster.




He may have influenced the archetype, but he isn't a Beastmaster Ranger: he's a Hunter with a magical item. He has no "animal companion."


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 28, 2018)

Eric V said:


> "Well, technically, that's a magical item...you _can't_ expect that to follow the same rules as a Ranger with a real, live animal companion, you know.  I know that's what inspired you to play a Beastmaster, but it's not the game's fault that you misunderstood what was going on with Drizzt."




The item that Driz'zt has is in the DMG, available to anybody.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 28, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> He may have influenced the archetype, but he isn't a Beastmaster Ranger: he's a Hunter with a magical item. He has no "animal companion."




Right and Conan may have influenced the archetype, but he isn't a Barbarian Ranger. What's your point?
People looked at Dritz and said "that's what I want to do!" so they took that into account when making a class that let them do that. They failed.


----------



## Gradine (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> You could of just asked. Revised Ranger Beastmaster hit dice. (And I think you mean under-stating?)




I did mean under-stating (or perhaps uselessness), thank you.

I like the idea of animal companions gaining HD, but I do tend to think of a beastmaster companion that is, at best, 1 HD lower than same-leveled PC to be way too close to approaching the level of survivability as another PC. I'm not a fan of the revised beastmaster for a number of reasons, but that's one of them.


----------



## Gradine (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Right and Conan may have influenced the archetype, but he isn't a Barbarian Ranger. What's your point?
> People looked at Dritz and said "that's what I want to do!" so they took that into account when making a class that let them do that. They failed.




How did they fail? Drizzt's "animal companion" is not a Beastmaster companion, it's the result of a magical item that is available to all PCs, _including Beastmaster Rangers._ Drizzt is not a Beastmaster, and is not therefore not the ideal upon which the archetype should be judged on. And even if you did, you can just say:

"Look, I built a drow Beastmaster Ranger with a pair of scimitars and an _onyx figurine of wondrous power._ He's just like Drizzt, plus he gets another animal companion!"


----------



## ad_hoc (Aug 28, 2018)

It is important for people to accept that some of the classes (and subclasses) just aren't for them. Even if they used to be. And that is how it should be. I am glad there are classes I have no interest in playing because I know that people with different tastes will likely find something interesting in the game.

In previous editions Wizards were my favourite class, now they don't interest me. I never used to care for the concepts of Monks and Warlocks but now they're 2 of my favourite classes. New edition, new themes, new mechanics, new game.

While I am generally not in Rangers, if I were to play one I would definitely pick Beastmaster. And not just for the theme. I like the mechanics of it and for the way I want to play it is stronger than the Hunter. I get that people like the Hunter more in general, but then, that's why there are 2 subclasses.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 28, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Of course they're fair game? I never claimed otherwise?
> I claimed fours things total:
> The animal companion is seriously lacking in survival ability.
> I am drawing only from the PHB.
> ...




We agree Basic rules are fair game for anyone to use. So, you expressed a desire to have a "fighting" animal companion, by which you mean direct attacking rather than using the help action or something like that.  OK, so what exactly is wrong with these two animal companions for that purpose? Both can attack at a decent attack bonus (+6), do decent damage (GPS does an average of 17 on failed save or 11.75 on a successful; FS does 8.5 damage with no save), and do it without being subject to return attack most of the time (one has reach with a 30 move and the other has flyby attack with a 60 fly). And even if they do get a return attack, they both have decent ACs as well (14). So can we agree these are not bad options for what you're looking for?


----------



## BookBarbarian (Aug 29, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> He may have influenced the archetype, but he isn't a Beastmaster Ranger: he's a Hunter with a magical item. He has no "animal companion."




Heck, he isn't even a Ranger, he's never cast Hunter's Mark, Spike Growth, Goodberry or any other Ranger Spell.

He's a Fighter with a onyx figurine of wondrous power.

I doubt he's popular with the current crowd of new players playing Rangers anyway.


----------



## OB1 (Aug 29, 2018)

Eric V said:


> Of course I want more power for the companion...it dies far too easily!!  Why would that be a problematic motivation to ask for a rule change??  "A better companion for some character concept I have in my head" (which, apparently, is all right as a motivation) necessarily includes greater survivability for the companion.




Which is what new spells or feats would do at the cost of a bit of power elsewhere. Why is that not a fair trade off?  The UA Ranger is popular because it is straight up power creep. 

But I’ve offered a set of feats and spells that will increase the survivability and combat effectiveness of your companion at the cost of being able to do other Ranger spell related things or of an ASI or other feat. And I’m hearing, no, that’s not okay, I want my concept and what the other Rangers already have. 

That’s an increase in power level. 

These spells and feats aren’t taxes, they are trade offs. And if having your animal companion be a DPR boosting meat shield is what you want out of it, you should have to pay for that with other class features.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Aug 29, 2018)

BookBarbarian said:


> Heck, he isn't even a Ranger, he's never cast Hunter's Mark, Spike Growth, Goodberry or any other Ranger Spell.
> 
> He's a Fighter with a onyx figurine of wondrous power.
> 
> I doubt he's popular with the current crowd of new players playing Rangers anyway.




Well, the popular beastmaster of the moment has never cast a ranger spell either. Though that may be because he knows nothing.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Aug 29, 2018)

OB1 said:


> Which is what new spells or feats would do at the cost of a bit of power elsewhere. Why is that not a fair trade off?  The UA Ranger is popular because it is straight up power creep.
> 
> But I’ve offered a set of feats and spells that will increase the survivability and combat effectiveness of your companion at the cost of being able to do other Ranger spell related things or of an ASI or other feat. And I’m hearing, no, that’s not okay, I want my concept and what the other Rangers already have.
> 
> ...



There's some truth to what you say, but also some truth to what   [MENTION=6779717]Eric V[/MENTION] says. Some things l may merit trading off for, like how many hit points the companion has. But other elements of the companion, like _being able to act independently_, are pretty essential on a conceptual level, and requiring a spell or feat for it would indeed constitute a tax (and be kind of bizarre). Fixing that kind of stuff may be "power creep", but it's only creeping the class' power to the point where it should have been in the first place.


----------



## Eric V (Aug 29, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Right and Conan may have influenced the archetype, but he isn't a Barbarian Ranger. What's your point?
> People looked at Dritz and said "that's what I want to do!" so they took that into account when making a class that let them do that. They failed.




They should have been told to play a fighter with a figurine of wondrous power.


----------



## Eric V (Aug 29, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> There's some truth to what you say, but also some truth to what   [MENTION=6779717]Eric V[/MENTION] says. Some things l may merit trading off for, like how many hit points the companion has. But other elements of the companion, like _being able to act independently_, are pretty essential on a conceptual level, and requiring a spell or feat for it would indeed constitute a tax (and be kind of bizarre). Fixing that kind of stuff may be "power creep", but it's only creeping the class' power to the point where it should have been in the first place.




It's not power creep if it brings it up to par with the other subclasses.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 29, 2018)

Yunru said:


> You could of just asked. Revised Ranger Beastmaster hit dice. (And I think you mean under-stating?)




Umm, pardon me if I'm wrong here, but, doesn't that just mean that you should play the Revised Ranger Beastmaster?  Doesn't that resolve the issues of hit dice and survivability? 

So... again... isn't this problem already fixed?  Why continue to bitch about the PHB ranger when the solution is already available?  Or is there some issue with the revised beast master that I'm missing?


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Right and Conan may have influenced the archetype, but he isn't a Barbarian Ranger. What's your point?
> People looked at Dritz and said "that's what I want to do!" so they took that into account when making a class that let them do that. They failed.



When Perkins used Driz'zt in AI, he wrote him up as a Champion Fighter. The relationship of Driz'zt to the Ranger class is very loose.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2018)

Eric V said:


> They should have been told to play a fighter with a figurine of wondrous power.



If you want to literally play Driz'zt, then yes, that is the way to go.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2018)

Eric V said:


> It's not power creep if it brings it up to par with the other subclasses.



Power wise, there is no problem: the Beastmaster can contribute just fine if played to type. Unfortunately, the type WotC is not what many people  wanted.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 29, 2018)

Ok, I'll cop to maybe missing stuff from earlier posts, but, is the issue on the table right now pet survivability?  Is that right?

So, here are three solutions:

1.  Give pets max HP.  

2.  Give pets Resistance to all forms of damage.  The bonding of the ranger and the pet makes the pet more durable.

3.  The pet and the ranger share a single pool of HP.  Yes, that means that a Beast Master ranger gets a bunch more HP, but, he's also twice as vulnerable to attacks.  Keeps the pet alive and done.

What more do we really need?


----------



## ClaytonCross (Aug 29, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Ok, I'll cop to maybe missing stuff from earlier posts, but, is the issue on the table right now pet survivability?  Is that right?
> 
> So, here are three solutions:
> 
> ...




I really like #3, it has cost to it but I would also be willing to say normal pet HP to 1 then drains the Ranger to but not below 1, and vise versa so your ranger and pet can keep each other alive, or both die to a single AoE damage over load, but you will not see the ranger or beast drop just because the other drops. Very close but that means the pet could take one last over flow attack without killing the ranger. This link also means healing the Ranger above 1 effectively heals the pet/companion. It would also make since that they share damage resistances so I wouldn't want #2 in that case. #1 might me negligible at later levels since the ranger is likely providing the majority of the health, So I am kind of indifferent there.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 29, 2018)

Was asleep and missed a bunch D:



Gradine said:


> I did mean under-stating (or perhaps uselessness), thank you.
> 
> I like the idea of animal companions gaining HD, but I do tend to think of a beastmaster companion that is, at best, 1 HD lower than same-leveled PC to be way too close to approaching the level of survivability as another PC. I'm not a fan of the revised beastmaster for a number of reasons, but that's one of them.



See, I don't see that as a problem. It's not like survivability is the be-all-end-all. They're still not going to perform nearly on par as a PC offensively unless the beastmaster uses their action to.



Gradine said:


> How did they fail? Drizzt's "animal companion" is not a Beastmaster companion, it's the result of a magical item that is available to all PCs, _including Beastmaster Rangers._ Drizzt is not a Beastmaster, and is not therefore not the ideal upon which the archetype should be judged on. And even if you did, you can just say:
> 
> "Look, I built a drow Beastmaster Ranger with a pair of scimitars and an _onyx figurine of wondrous power._ He's just like Drizzt, plus he gets another animal companion!"



Because based on doesn't mean "exactly the same."
People look at Dritz with his animal and go "wow, if only I could do that _all the time_."
Or just came from WoW and so already know how cool it is to have pets fight with you.



Mistwell said:


> We agree Basic rules are fair game for anyone to use. So, you expressed a desire to have a "fighting" animal companion, by which you mean direct attacking rather than using the help action or something like that.  OK, so what exactly is wrong with these two animal companions for that purpose? Both can attack at a decent attack bonus (+6), do decent damage (GPS does an average of 17 on failed save or 11.75 on a successful; FS does 8.5 damage with no save), and do it without being subject to return attack most of the time (one has reach with a 30 move and the other has flyby attack with a 60 fly). And even if they do get a return attack, they both have decent ACs as well (14). So can we agree these are not bad options for what you're looking for?



Well the biggest problem is they're both snakes. Which is great and all but... they're both snakes. Real open to options there, might as well call it the Snakemaster subclass 



OB1 said:


> And if having your animal companion be a DPR boosting meat shield is what you want out of it, you should have to pay for that with other class features.



... Then explain to me why the level 11 feature straight up says "use you animal companion as a DPR boost" (despite not having the survivability to do so)?



Hussar said:


> Umm, pardon me if I'm wrong here, but, doesn't that just mean that you should play the Revised Ranger Beastmaster?  Doesn't that resolve the issues of hit dice and survivability?
> 
> So... again... isn't this problem already fixed?  Why continue to bitch about the PHB ranger when the solution is already available?  Or is there some issue with the revised beast master that I'm missing?



Well let's see. For one, it's not official, so no, the problem's not fixed. For two, the Revised Ranger Beastmaster comes with the horrible Revised Ranger. And for three, the Revised Beastmaster seems a little _too_ strong. So typical UA problems. Not official, too powerful.


----------



## ad_hoc (Aug 29, 2018)

If the beast dying is the issue then just don't have the beast die when they hit 0.


----------



## Eubani (Aug 29, 2018)

How far in helping with companion survival does allowing Hit Dice and Death saves go?


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Aug 29, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> The relationship of Driz'zt to the Ranger class is very loose.



Is there a popular fictional character for whom the relationship to the Ranger class is _not_ loose?

I ask in all seriousness, because this is the huge conceptual problem with the D&D ranger as it currently exists. Fan of Aragorn, Chingachgook, the Green Arrow, Jon Snow, or Katniss Everdeen? The advice always seems to be to play something other than a ranger. And maybe, _maybe_ you can dismiss all those characters as belonging to different settings and so not relevant to this game - I think that's myopic, but let's grant it for the sake of argument. Driz'zt, though, was written into a D&D universe explicitly as a D&D ranger. If even _he_ is better modeled with another class now, then what the hell is going on with the ranger? Who is it for?


----------



## Eric V (Aug 29, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Power wise, there is no problem: the Beastmaster can contribute just fine if played to type. Unfortunately, the type WotC is not what many people  wanted.




"...if played to type."

1) What "type" is that?

2) Does it contribute as well as the other Ranger subclasses?


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2018)

Eric V said:


> "...if played to type."
> 
> 1) What "type" is that?
> 
> 2) Does it contribute as well as the other Ranger subclasses?




As discussed extensively in this thread, using the pet the way the designers intended. Now, did they make a misstep with theit intention versus player expectations? Probably. Doesn't mean the subclass doesn't work.

The other Subclasses are less difficult to use, certainly. Pet classes are always going to be more fiddley, particularly when the ideal strategy runs counterintuitive to someone's role-playing intentions (see again, Laura Bailey's concern for Trinkets safety).


----------



## Yunru (Aug 29, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> As discussed extensively in this thread, using the pet the way the designers intended. Now, did they make a misstep with theit intention versus player expectations? Probably. Doesn't mean the subclass doesn't work.



The claimed way is false. "Help and retreat" is in direct contradiction to the level 11 feature.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2018)

Yunru said:


> The claimed way is false. "Help and retreat" is in direct contradiction to the level 11 feature.




People use the pet successfully: it isn't another PC, certainly, but used properly the subclass is fine.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Aug 29, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Is there a popular fictional character for whom the relationship to the Ranger class is _not_ loose?




Hmm. Geralt of Rivia is pretty tight. Uses a smattering of Spells, wilderness know how, alchemical skills, and combat training to hunt monsters beyond the capabilities of other folk whether in urban or wild environs.

I could emulate that quite well with a 5e Ranger. (still I'm excited for the Witcher TTRPG)



TheCosmicKid said:


> I ask in all seriousness, because this is the huge conceptual problem with the D&D ranger as it currently exists. Fan of Aragorn, Chingachgook, the Green Arrow, Jon Snow, or Katniss Everdeen? The advice always seems to be to play something other than a ranger. And maybe, _maybe_ you can dismiss all those characters as belonging to different settings and so not relevant to this game - I think that's myopic, but let's grant it for the sake of argument.




Very true. When the broad concept of ranger is "Best person to have around in the wilderness" there is bound to be some of this.



TheCosmicKid said:


> IDriz'zt, though, was written into a D&D universe explicitly as a D&D ranger. If even _he_ is better modeled with another class now, then what the hell is going on with the ranger?




Even in his stats from the 3E FRCS he had more levels in Fighter than Ranger.



TheCosmicKid said:


> Who is it for?




A fine question indeed.


----------



## Satyrn (Aug 29, 2018)

Eric V said:


> I am pretty sure at least Chaosmancer addressed them...I'm not trying to criticize, they're all fine as ideas, but the fighting style comes on at a different level than when they would get the companion, and the feats and spells are "taxes" that the Beastmaster has to use to make his subclass abilities be on par with the other subclasses who can use their feats and spells for additional things.
> 
> Like I asked someone else: why couldn't those ideas just be subclass features?




They can be. I even talked to [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] about simply giving the benefits of his suggested fighting style to the beastmaster directly, and added that to my notes as my preferred fix.


----------



## OB1 (Aug 29, 2018)

Yunru said:


> The claimed way is false. "Help and retreat" is in direct contradiction to the level 11 feature.




Why is it a contradiction? Why can’t my pet help me for most of combat to control the battlefield, then go in for the kill at the end?  Just because you get the 11th level feature doesn’t mean it has to be used every round. 

The Beastmaster Ranger is designed as a controller.


----------



## Gradine (Aug 29, 2018)

The Ranger has never had a stable identity as a class. I feel like it was originally envisioned as "Be Aragorn" and that identity has drifted this way and that ever since. I feel like it retained a relatively stable identity (although I always thought it weird that Minsc was a Ranger) until Wizards picked it up and they haven't figured out what to do with it since. 3.X treated the class like its main distinctions were whether they were archers or dual-wielders, in a system where other classes could excel at either, and didn't really give the class anything else to really set it apart. 4e made it worse by taking away the Ranger's magic and focusing the class almost entirely on its combat role. The 5e Ranger is arguably the closest WotC has gotten to a "classic" Ranger, but it still doesn't have a strong handle on what it's unique identity is supposed to be, and as a result it feels like many "classic" Ranger archetypes could be better built, or at least built more easily, with a different class and the way 5e handles backgrounds. The one _exception_ I could probably think of, in all honesty, is Drizzt, who as far as a PHB-only campaign is concerned is a pretty solid fit for a Hunter Ranger, and now that we have the Gloom Stalker (or heck, Monster Slayer works too) I'm not entirely certain why there's even a conversation as to why he somehow doesn't fit in the class anymore.

Here's the real trouble with the animal companion - it's a vestige of a style of play that D&D has not supported well since, well at least since AD&D. This was back when _every_ class was attracting followers of some kind or another, and there was more of a focus on stronghold building and protection, as opposed to having that small army of followers/apprentices/animals join you on adventures and dungeon crawls and hack monsters with you. It was a nod to its wargaming roots. 3.X made at least a token effort to make followers an option but it just... doesn't really fit the mode of play D&D has shifted into at this point. I can understand the drive to still have an "animal companion" class, and WotC did about as good a job with it as they reasonably could have without really breaking the game or borking over the action economy, but honestly I think the "Beastmaster" is a trope that I think has worn out its fit within the game.


----------



## Asgorath (Aug 29, 2018)

Man, this thread has been moving fast lately.  I think it's worth remembering some details from the recent Dragon Talk Q&A from Jeremy Crawford:

- The last survey was in 2015 and there are millions and millions of new players.  They are going to do another survey to gauge the current satisfaction levels before pursuing things like the UA Revised Ranger.  They are not ruling out making changes as needed, but they want to get more up-to-date information before pursuing a given path.

- They are going to fix some issues with the Ranger via the new errata, which should be out very soon.  The likely thing here is to make it clear that a Beast Master's companion will continue to perform the action you ordered it to each round until otherwise specified.  That is, you can give your companion an order to attack a target, and it will just keep doing that and free up the Ranger's action on subsequent turns.

Both of these things seem pretty reasonable to me.  WOTC isn't saying "the Beast Master is fine and we're not going to change anything", they are saying they'd like to better understand what the current player base thinks before spending their development resources.


----------



## ehren37 (Aug 29, 2018)

Part of the issue is that the ranger just isn't a very good combatant in mid to upper levels. They're also  compare poorly to paladins, one of the better non-full casters. They only get a second attack, but so do valor bards. One of their typical fighting styles, Dual Wielding, drops off considerably and uses the bonus action, a flaw Mearls even admits. Unlike paladins who get a bonus d8 damage onm attacks at 11th level, their damage is flat from 5th level on.

They're needlessly saddled with a spells known limitation - paladins get almost as many extra spells granted from their Oath as Rangers can KNOW. Their ranger specific spells in general also suck outside of Swift Quiver and Hunter's Mark, being poor damage for the levels obtained and not worth the actions. Hail of Thorns, Cordon of Arrows and Lightning Arrow are straight garbage. Paladins get to use their spell stat for social checks, casting, as well as combat, in the form of their bounded accuracy breaking auras. Rangers get marginal exploration perks on stuff that is highly campaign and playstyle dependent. Their first level is basically all ribbon, and too many things are marginal at best, like Hide in Plain Sight.   

Rangers can function OK, but that's because the bar is so low in 5E that you have to actively try to fail. They're by far the weakest of the PHB classes IMO. One of my players is running a revised ranger, and it still isn't as impressive as the Oath of the Ancients paladin I've nerfed twice...


----------



## Asgorath (Aug 29, 2018)

ehren37 said:


> Part of the issue is that the ranger just isn't a very good combatant in mid to upper levels. They're also  compare poorly to paladins, one of the better non-full casters. They only get a second attack, but so do valor bards. One of their typical fighting styles, Dual Wielding, drops off considerably and uses the bonus action, a flaw Mearls even admits. Unlike paladins who get a bonus d8 damage onm attacks at 11th level, their damage is flat from 5th level on.
> 
> They're needlessly saddled with a spells known limitation - paladins get almost as many extra spells granted from their Oath as Rangers can KNOW. Their ranger specific spells in general also suck outside of Swift Quiver and Hunter's Mark, being poor damage for the levels obtained and not worth the actions. Hail of Thorns, Cordon of Arrows and Lightning Arrow are straight garbage. Paladins get to use their spell stat for social checks, casting, as well as combat, in the form of their bounded accuracy breaking auras. Rangers get marginal exploration perks on stuff that is highly campaign and playstyle dependent. Their first level is basically all ribbon, and too many things are marginal at best, like Hide in Plain Sight.
> 
> Rangers can function OK, but that's because the bar is so low in 5E that you have to actively try to fail. They're by far the weakest of the PHB classes IMO. One of my players is running a revised ranger, and it still isn't as impressive as the Oath of the Ancients paladin I've nerfed twice...




I've seen plenty of arguments that suggest all classes compare poorly to Paladins, though.  All non-Fighter classes cap at two attacks per round, so it's not surprising that Rangers only get 2 as well.  I think it's worth considering the Ranger additions from XGtE, which is WOTC's first official effort to improve the Ranger.  Personally, I think the Gloom Stalker is pretty great, and am currently playing a Wood Elf Gloom Stalker with Sharpshooter.  At higher levels, you get:

- 3 attacks in the first round, with an extra 1d8 on the first attack.
- Bonus action to Hide, giving triple advantage via Elven Accuracy.
- If you do miss, you get another attack (which means you get 3 attacks per round fairly often).

Sure, it's not going to match an Action Surging Fighter/Paladin who's dumping max-level Smites on every hit, but then again, who is?  You can also do that from the safety of hundreds of feet away from the enemy, assuming the battlefield allows for it.  I also remember standing around doing basically nothing against a flying dragon on my Vengeance Paladin, and would've been in the same situation as any melee class/subclass.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 29, 2018)

Massive amount of replies, didn't expect to have +10 pages of new stuff to read through



OB1 said:


> Yes exactly!  An Owl at 6th level can swoop in, help on a ranged attack, then swoop out without taking AoO.





  Until 7th level, this is essentially the True Strike Cantrip (use your action to get advantage on a later attack)

  How powerful you consider that cantrip will likely inform how powerful you see this ability. 

  After 7th level this is a viable use of your bonus action, but you have to get through 7 levels of the class to use this tactic, and you cannot Hunter's Mark or Dual-wield on the turn you do this. 



OB1 said:


> Battlefield control using dodge as a bonus is also a powerful tactic. With a wolf next to a melee Ranger, now her opponent takes two AoOs if it leaves, one of which has advantage and the chance to knock prone.  At range, that Wolf taking dodge can make it harder for opponents to close.




  Or the enemy disengages and avoids both attacks, or they just focus on the ranger and ignore the wolf who is doing nothing in the combat

  And again, until 7th level this tactic takes your entire turn and action to pull off, because you are using your action to command the dodge. 



OB1 said:


> In the first few levels of the subclass, a wolf can prowl the edge of the battlefield, cutting off escape routes or providing a last line of defense for your squishy mage. It can also hold back in later fights if it took a hit in an early combat.
> 
> Just because it’s not meant to go head to head in melee with your opponents doesn’t make it useless in combat.




  Cutting off escape routes if the wolf can get to them or if there are single points of exit from the map.  In a forest for example, the enemy can run in multiple different directions. Meanwile in a cave or a dungeon room, the wolf will need to get behind enemy lines to cut off retreat, possibly taking many Attacks of Opportunity or drawing attention as it gets in range of mages or archers who will want it to stay back. Defending the mage by being a body in the way can work, but if the enemy already charged through the rest of your party, it is probably willing to take the hit from the wolf too. 




Mistwell said:


> I don't know where that conception comes from. Nothing about the beastmaster's animal companion reads to me that it's "supposed to be a frontline combatant". They can be used in combat, but mostly to help the ranger and to do some special things like knocking foes down, poisoning foes, doing a flyby attack on foes, and those sorts of things the ranger has more difficulty doing. These usually set up advantageous situations that the ranger and his allies can take advantage of, but it really doesn't feel like a front line attacker.




  The conception comes from the abilities. Until level 7 the beast cannot take any action other than attacking without it costing the ranger his entire turn. Until level 5 the beast cannot even attack without costing the Ranger his entire attack action. 

  And, how do you think companions knock down foes, poison foes, and ect? Do they not need to make an attack action to do this? Are they not on the frontlines when they do so, since almost no beasts have a ranged attack? 

  Hence, they are frontline combatants. They are on the front lines of the fight, making melee attacks. Otherwise, they stand in the back and look mildly threatening, which isn't exactly what I would call a "combat role"




Mistwell said:


> What? How is it hard to look at their hit dice? And why are you still claiming 1 or 2 when in this very response we covered that it's 2 or 3?




  I don't respond every day, and it takes some time for me to read through and reply to everything, sometimes I miss that I'm talking about a point someone else covered. More beasts have 2 than I thought, very few have 3 (panther does surprisingly, I didn't think they were that sturdy) but again, more than I thought. So, 1 to 3, with most having two. 

  As for "how is it hard" I imagine if I went to some of my newer players, they would have no idea where a beasts HD are, because they wouldn't realize the dice calculation for the hp shows you the HD. Once you know that it is easy, but if you don't read monster statblocks often (which not a lot of players do) you might be stuck looking for something that says "Hit Dice" and you will never find it. 




Mistwell said:


> In my opinion animal companions for combat are best used for helping the ranger and other party members attack. But if you want them to do damage it's usually better to not just leave them out there in combat as if they are a fighter.




  Great, Help the Ranger and the other fighters, so what does it do until level 7 when it can do that? Stand there and be threatening. Sure, tactically sound idea, boring as heck and very passive. 

  And hit and run tactics are very hard to pull of without cunning actions or Mobile, since you'll proc OA's all over the place. 



Mistwell said:


> Most feats do three things and what I had in mind, if you're not going the Fighting Style or Spell route, would be a feat that would cover a lot of ground that people seem to complain about the most with th beastmaster ranger. Like let it open up higher CR animals, allow the ranger to take a hit intended for the animal instead, heal them, give them hit dice equal to your ranger level, etc..
> 
> My perspective is that the beastmaster could use some boosts and I have suggested three, but that it's not nearly as bad as people here often say it is right now. You've been dismissive of those fixes, and blatantly sarcastic, while simultaneously suggesting my position is to simply defend the status quo. You're not even internally consistent in your response to me (dismissing proposed fixes while claiming I am defending status quo). Which suggests it's almost like you're disagreeing with everything I say just to disagree. See how that works?




  Fair enough. I know I've gotten snippy and sarcastic recently. 

  But, I'm not sure I've been entirely dismissive of all your fixes. It just seems to me that taking a weak subclass and fixing it by demanding more resources from the player (invest feats, new spells, and fighting styles) breaks down as a solution when you turn around and compare it to another ranger who instead of going beastmaster went a different route and either still took the useful and powerful stuff you created, or simply got things that made them better, leaving the Beastmaster in the dust. 

  Why not just rewrite the class to do the things we want, instead of demanding they pay further tribute in feats and spells? Especially since the point of those feats and spells is to rewrite the abilities that the class gives us and are causing the problems. 

  Also, we've examined some of your suggestions. There are very few higher CR beasts to make an increase in CR worth it, as was discussed with the spell that could allow up to a CR 3 beast bond with the ranger. I'm not sure what your feat means by "heal them", so I can't comment on it. Taking hits for the beast would only work in melee, a powerful option, but one that would then limit the advantage of being two places at once and would rarely work for the Archer archetypes common to rangers, since they would rarely decide to be in the melee with the beast. I like the HD based on level, it keeps things simple and consistent with how Hit Dice work. I'd like it to just be a rule instead of a feat, but it is a good idea. 

  So, I'm criticizing the ideas that I see as having problems, and wondering what your solutions are to those. How do you plan on allowing a ranger who focuses on archery to protect a beast like a wolf which is best in melee range? I'm not going to ignore that that is an issue with your proposed design just because it works in some circumstances, that would not be useful for either of us.



Jester David said:


> You can *ALWAYS *find a reason to justify a change or a revision. That's easy.
> 
> At the end of the day, the PHB ranger is popular with the PLAYERS. It is being played. A lot. What a small fraction of a fraction of the audience whines about online _DOES NOT MATTER_.
> 
> ...




  Yes we can find a reason, because the mechanics seem to be incredibly poor. 

  And that's not good enough for you because we could try and fix anything in the game? Fine, but you know those people asking "is the ranger weak" they got responses that said "Yes it is, because of these reasons." Never once did I see someone reply "Yes it is weak because the internet said so" or "I heard it was weak, but I don't know why". 

  And so maybe the individual player doesn't matter, maybe "PLAYERS" as a massive faceless group matters. But, in multiple of those posts, I saw threads of people talking about how they went to play the ranger as a brand new player, and within a few weeks or a few levels they went to their DM to ask about rerolling their character as something else. Not because they no longer liked the story of their class, or the themes of their class, but because the mechanics drove them away and they felt useless.  That bothers me, that shows me that something needs to be done. And sure, I can play a Scout Rogue Outlander and be better than the ranger, I can play a Druid and be better than the Ranger (don't even need a melee class to go into melee as a druid, Shillelagh rocks) I can do a lot of things, except be satisfied with the PHB Ranger




Jester David said:


> And I'm not ready for 6th Edition yet.




  Great, has nothing to do with the point. Fixing a class shouldn't necessitate a reworking of the entire system from the ground up. That is a strawman if I've ever seen one. 



Jester David said:


> And, really, there's a bajillion ranger fixes online. If people want a fix, they can find one. And likely ones that might be better than WotC's. It's not like WotC has some magical design powers that make everything they touch perfect. After all… they've taken three cracks at the ranger and people still seem unhappy. Do you REALLY think a fourth version of the ranger will solve everything.
> If you're not happy and satisfied with the ranger…. _MAKE YOUR OWN_. Take a bunch of the existing options and build a ranger that rubs you the right way. Stop looking to external sources for happiness.




  So the fact that there are so many fixes, that people are constantly working to fix the Ranger, doesn't strike you as a bit odd if there is nothing wrong with it? 

  And, I'm not looking for external happiness, heck, I've said it repeatedly if WoTC had simply decided to say "Hey, fixing the Ranger is hard, and we aren't going to devote further resources at this time to that end" We'd be having an entirely different conversation. Because, they wouldn't be telling me that the problems I see are an illusion, a hoax crafted by internet trolls to fool people into thinking there exists a problem with this class. 

  When people tell me that what I believe is a lie, that I'm actually wrong, and then can't back it up with evidence, I tend to get my hackles up a bit. They didn't need to give it a fourth pass (I must have missed 2 or 3, unless you are thinking 1 was during playtest) they just didn't need to say I'm a liar.




Mistwell said:


> I've suggested three additions to the game to help. They've gotten almost zero response from people claiming the beastmaster needs help. Meanwhile we've had numerous claims like yours that people are saying there's nothing to complain about and everyone is happy (when I have seen almost zero people make that claim). I hope you can understand why the frustration might be mutual at this point.




  I hope by almost zero you aren't including myself, who has responded to your fighting style and your feats (as vague as you've written them). Not sure when the third thing was. 

  And, considering that despite the occasional drop in we've only had like half a dozen people responding in this thread consistently... I represent a rather larger percentage of the thread than "almost zero"

  Edit: And this gets discussed. See, reading through ten pages of catch up material and responding is hard. 




OB1 said:


> It’s not a tax, it’s an expansion of abilities. Not everyone would take them, only those who want their companion to have greater combat abilities than currently provided. Why wouldn’t that come at a price?
> 
> And if the price isn’t worth it, than what you are saying is that you don’t really want a better companion for some character concept you have in your head, you just want more power.




  Because they should have had greater combat abilities to begin with. 

  Let us make a hypothetical class, this class has no weapon proficiencies, but also has no bonuses to unarmed attacks. We'll assume that the rest of the class is meh in utility abilities, but clearly the melee options are terrible, despite this class being called Hero for example.

  So someone suggests a feat that will give someone proficiency in all martial weapons. Is this a good fix for the class? After all, if you want more combat power it should come at a cost. 

  However, that doesn't fly, because it was designed in a way that made it terrible, and people rightly point out that demanding a feat just to get weapons for their class which should clearly have weapons is a pointless cost. 

  Feats and spells should provide more baseline options, not be a tax used to bring someone up to the baseline level. That shouldn't need to be explained again and again and again.




Gradine said:


> Also, if I'm fighting a bugbear alongside my trusty wolf, and the bugbear starts attacking my wolf because he sees _it_ as the bigger threat, there's something that's gone horribly wrong and has little to do with the construction of the class or its features.




  Like... because the wolf was the only one attacking it? Until level 5 your companion either does nothing, or is the one attacking the enemy. And if the Bugbear wants to live, it hits the thing hurting it, not the man standing there whistling. 

  So does that count as something going "horribly wrong" or are we supposed to accept that for two full levels you combat companion (because if it was utility only we need to once again discuss how Find Familiar is superior in every sense) is supposed to not engage in combat except to stand next to you and look scary?




Mistwell said:


> This is a bad excuse. Both I mentioned are in the free Basic rules everyone has access to. It's obvious they are fair game for this discussion and if you're going to reduce the discussion down to a false claim "you can only choose from the three directly mentioned in the PHB as examples" even though you yourself didn't do that when listing animal companions, then I think we all know where you're coming from at this point. Is this a conversation you're having, or are you just trying to hit an "I win" button on an argument by defining the rules to say you win?






Gradine said:


> [citation needed]




  Actually, just because the Basic rules are free doesn't mean people even know they exist. 

  I certainly didn't tell my new players about it, because it is a poor version of the PHB and I always allow people to peruse my Player's Handbook so there is no need to tell them about the Basic Rules online. 


  And, I think Yunru has a fair point I had not considered. There is a taboo on the players looking through the Monster Manual, but alternatively, all of the best companion choices are not in the Player's Handbook and are intstead in the Monster Manual. 

  Yes, a proper DM should make those stats available to the player, but it would not be something a new player would see on their own.




Gradine said:


> An animal companion is meant to be used strategically and support your own abilities and powers, not provide another party tank. That is completely unreasonable.




  Before level 5 or level 7, how does the Companion do this. 

  Yes, [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] has talked a lot about the help action, but you are four levels deep into the subclass by that point. Is getting the equivalent of the True Strike Cantrip a valuable use of your time at levels 3 and 4? 

  Sure, you could also have it stand somewhere and threaten opportunity attacks. But, either the enemy will be engaged with another PC (in which case the animal will be ignored as it is not contributing to the fight) or the animal will be 1v1 (in which case the enemy might kill the beast, use their action to disengage and move towards the backline, or simply take the relatively weak attack of the beast). This also puts the full tactical value of your beast on the DMs whims, because the DM gets to decide what the enemy does and you just have to hope it is what you were expecting.




OB1 said:


> These spells and feats aren’t taxes, they are trade offs. And if having your animal companion  *be a DPR boosting meat shield* is what you want out of it, you should have to pay for that with other class features.




  Translate bold into "working as advertised" and you might see what we are saying about it being a tax.



Hussar said:


> Ok, I'll cop to maybe missing stuff from earlier posts, but, is the issue on the table right now pet survivability?  Is that right?
> 
> So, here are three solutions:
> 
> ...




  I'm liking the 3rd option the more I think about it. 

  May end up fiddling around with it, but it adds more to the story that the ability to revive the beast has for the Beastmaster and gets that mystic bond I want pretty dead on.




Parmandur said:


> As discussed extensively in this thread, using the pet the way the designers intended. Now, did they make a misstep with theit intention versus player expectations? Probably. Doesn't mean the subclass doesn't work.




  [MENTION=6779717]Eric V[/MENTION]

  If you don't want to look back through the thread, I believe Parmandur is talking about the expectation that the Beast master's companion is disposable and dies very often, only to be replaced by another disposable beast that will die very quickly.

  So you don't have a companion, you have a missile you send after your enemies (reference to a story where someone was told not to act like a missile in a fight by flying in head-first "because you don't reuse a missile") 




OB1 said:


> Why is it a contradiction? Why can’t my pet help me for most of combat to control the battlefield, then go in for the kill at the end?  Just because you get the 11th level feature doesn’t mean it has to be used every round.
> 
> The Beastmaster Ranger is designed as a controller.




  And you designate control as "stand there and look threatening if they try and leave?" 

  Beastmaster Ranger would then be designed as one of the worst controllers, who generally can shape the battlefield by affecting multiple enemies at a time. Not by threatening one enemy with some minor damage.



Asgorath said:


> - They are going to fix some issues with the Ranger via the new errata, which should be out very soon.  The likely thing here is to make it clear that a Beast Master's companion will continue to perform the action you ordered it to each round until otherwise specified.  That is, you can give your companion an order to attack a target, and it will just keep doing that and free up the Ranger's action on subsequent turns..




  That would be some odd errata. 

  Right now you need to order the beast to move and order them to attack. 

  Let us say you order the beast to attack the goblins, and it auto-attacks every goblin in range, but then you need to order it to move to the next goblin to continue following their previous order, but you don't need to order them to attack again. 

  Sure, it works as long as the companion can keep attacking the same target for a while, but things strong enough to survive two or three turns of the beast attacking it can probably smear it with two or three attacks being returned. Unless we also buff Hp as has been being discussed.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 29, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> A huge amount of disjointed replies




There is no way I can reply to that mess you posted. Seriously, you quoted 6-7 people in one post, quoted me many times, but there are many replies to other posters in the same post as your replies to me, with many in between replies to me, and with a mention in reply to someone else? How am I, or anyone else, supposed to parse all that out to reply?

Here are a few replies as I saw them:

"Until level 7 the beast cannot take any action other than attacking without it costing the ranger his entire turn." Which is just plain false. "You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help action. " So you can't command it to attack without costing all your actions any more than you can command it to do anything else without it costing all your actions.

"And, how do you think companions knock down foes, poison foes, and ect? Do they not need to make an attack action to do this? Are they not on the frontlines when they do so, since almost no beasts have a ranged attack?" I already responded to that point. There are companions with reach, and with flyby attack, if direct attacking is what you want them to do.  Try the Giant Poisonous Snake or Flying Snake for instance.

"How do you plan on allowing a ranger who focuses on archery to protect a beast like a wolf which is best in melee range?" I don't. I absolutely completely do not expect a beastmaster ranger who wants their pet to focus on melee to themselves focus on archery. Take another sub-class if that's what you want to focus on. Because if you want your pet to focus on melee, then in the very least you need to focus on melee as well to fight beside your companion. This just seems to be one of those "I want it all" type perspectives. You're not going to get it all - with any class. A melee companion expects a melee ranger to be paired with it, or else don't choose a melee companion strategy. You can instead choose a run and gun beast like those mentioned above.


----------



## Asgorath (Aug 29, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> That would be some odd errata.
> 
> Right now you need to order the beast to move and order them to attack.
> 
> ...




Jeremy Crawford said that they have some Hunter changes/fixes coming via the new errata that solve some of the problems they were attempting to address with the UA Revised Ranger.  We'll see once they actually make those errata public, but as others have pointed out, I think there's a very reasonable reading of the Ranger text that allows for your companion to make intelligent choices once you've given it an order, freeing up your action every round to do other stuff like attack as normal.  After all, isn't that one of the complaints people have about the Beast Master, that you have to burn your action every turn to tell your companion to attack?


----------



## Jester David (Aug 29, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> Yes we can find a reason, because the mechanics seem to be incredibly poor.



No it’s not.
Slightly underpowered maybe. But “incredibly poor” is pure hyperbole. 

The beast master is so-so, but the ranger itself is fine. Especially for its first dozen levels (aka 90% of the levels that will actually see play). The hunter ranger is far from the weakest character option and can out-damage a fighter at many levels. (To say nothing of the _Guide to Everything_ options.)
Okay, the ranger relies a little too much on spells. And a few of its mechanics aren’t great. It’s first level features are lame. But it’s far from the unplayable mess it’s often presented as online. It’s not going to drag down the party, it will deal decent damage, and it still shines during exploration. 
Really, most optimizer’s class tier rankings put the ranger quite high. Above the berserker barbarian, elemental and shadow monk, and warlock. 

Also… 
I can name a half dozen things in the game that “weak” compared to simmilar options. I can also name a half-dozen overpowered options. 
Should they fix them all? 
And if not, why give the ranger special treatment? Why is it more of an issue?

Personally, I don’t think we need a repeat of 4th Edition (and late 3e) where each book has a dozen pages or errata and updates and the physical books become increasingly useless. I don’t want to have to stick loose leaf pages in my PHB to “patch” problems with the game, or have to wonder what version of the rules a DM is using.



Chaosmancer said:


> And that's not good enough for you because we could try and fix anything in the game? Fine, but you know those people asking "is the ranger weak" they got responses that said "Yes it is, because of these reasons." Never once did I see someone reply "Yes it is weak because the internet said so" or "I heard it was weak, but I don't know why".



:/
Why on EARTH would they say “because the internet said so”?!? That’s not a thing anyone has said ever in the history of humanity.
Of _course_ they’re going to say “Because or these reasons”... and then recite a list of problems they read off the internet.

Okay, so let’s just proceed assuming the ranger IS unequivocally weak. So what? There’s always going to be a weakest option. If they revise and fix the ranger, then another class will become the weakest. 
Will we need to fix the next weakest option after? 

The catch is even if the ranger is weak compared to other classes of the same type, in most homegames you don’t have a ranger and a paladin and a fighter and a barbarian all at the same table at the same time. So you don’t notice the difference at play. 
And even then, the variable of dice can have more of an impact. In play the weakest character has less to do with class and more to do with whose dice are hot.

Also… if the ranger was empirically weak and everyone knows it… why are so many people playing them? Why do so very, very many people happily play a class that is apparently obviously inferior? 
Because. It. Doesn’t. Matter.

Here’s the thing… despite being ridiculously weak compared to the wizard, cleric, and druid, people STILL played fighters in 3e. The fighter was always one of the most popular classes. And the variance in power level between a mid level wizard and a fighter in 3e/Pathfinder was ridiculously larger than the difference between the ranger and other classes in 5e. The disparity is well within the margin of error. 



Chaosmancer said:


> And so maybe the individual player doesn't matter, maybe "PLAYERS" as a massive faceless group matters. But, in multiple of those posts, I saw threads of people talking about how they went to play the ranger as a brand new player, and within a few weeks or a few levels they went to their DM to ask about rerolling their character as something else. Not because they no longer liked the story of their class, or the themes of their class, but because the mechanics drove them away and they felt useless.  That bothers me, that shows me that something needs to be done. And sure, I can play a Scout Rogue Outlander and be better than the ranger, I can play a Druid and be better than the Ranger (don't even need a melee class to go into melee as a druid, Shillelagh rocks) I can do a lot of things, except be satisfied with the PHB Ranger



That’s nice. 
How many people? Again, was it 1,000? Because otherwise the sample size is too small to remotely be relevant.

You also have a obvious sampling bias. First, you’re innately going to remember threads and posts that  match your opinions and skim over the ones that don’t. Second, the people who don’t find their character weak and don't switch aren’t going to post. 

It’s like going to a tech forum and looking for comments on an iPhone. Most of the posts that’s going to be people having trouble, as the people who are happily going about their buisness don’t visit, let alone write a thread about how their phone didn’t freeze and become a brick. 



Chaosmancer said:


> Great, has nothing to do with the point. Fixing a class shouldn't necessitate a reworking of the entire system from the ground up. That is a strawman if I've ever seen one.



How else do you get the class out to people?

The vast majority of players don’t visit the forums or the website or follow the designers on Twitter. Jeremy Crawford only has 46,000 followers. That’s only 0.3% of the D&D audience.
They could put out a revision of the class, and most players would not see it. 

So what good is a fix that most people don’t know of?



Chaosmancer said:


> So the fact that there are so many fixes, that people are constantly working to fix the Ranger, doesn't strike you as a bit odd if there is nothing wrong with it?



I didn’t say that it was perfect or that it couldn't be better. Just that it was fine. 

Also, there are variant bards, fighters, and paladins out there too. Should we redo those classes as well? A lot of people seem unhappy with the sorcerer and warlock. 



Chaosmancer said:


> And, I'm not looking for external happiness, heck, I've said it repeatedly if WoTC had simply decided to say "Hey, fixing the Ranger is hard, and we aren't going to devote further resources at this time to that end" We'd be having an entirely different conversation. Because, they wouldn't be telling me that the problems I see are an illusion, a hoax crafted by internet trolls to fool people into thinking there exists a problem with this class.



.
Where did they say that?

Actually LOOK at the tweet. What did Crawford *actually* say:
they’re not releasing an alternative ranger
The PHB ranger is the only official ranger
The ranger isn’t in among the least played classes
The Internet’s view of the ranger doesn’t match that of most players.

What point isn’t true? 
If you have a problem with the ranger, he’s not telling you that you’re wrong. He’s saying your view and experience was just do not match that of most players. 
Big deal. I’m also totally a minority among players. Heck, I’d argue most of us at ENWorld are.



Chaosmancer said:


> When people tell me that what I believe is a lie, that I'm actually wrong, and then can't back it up with evidence, I tend to get my hackles up a bit. They didn't need to give it a fourth pass (I must have missed 2 or 3, unless you are thinking 1 was during playtest) they just didn't need to say I'm a liar.



It’s not that what you believe is a lie, it’s that not everyone has the same belief.
If someone tells me that vanilla isn’t the best iced cream flavour I don’t say they’re calling me a liar and saying that I’m wrong.

Also, what evidence would you really accept? Is there *anything* Crawford could show you to back up his statement that you would accept?

As for a fourth pass, they did two in Unearthed Arcana, and one in the PHB. Three rangers. In addition to any released during the playtests.
Why would the next be perfect?


----------



## Hussar (Aug 29, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Was asleep and missed a bunch D:
> 
> /snip
> 
> Well let's see. For one, it's not official, so no, the problem's not fixed. For two, the Revised Ranger Beastmaster comes with the horrible Revised Ranger. And for three, the Revised Beastmaster seems a little _too_ strong. So typical UA problems. Not official, too powerful.




Wouldn't the solution be then to pair the original ranger class with the UA Beast Master?  Simply use the sub-class without the revised base class?

And, why does it matter if it's "official" or not?


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 30, 2018)

You know, I wouldn't mind some additional animals to choose from. Something like a Coelophysis dinosaur. AC 14, Bite +5, 4d6 damage, pack tactics. That's roughly the same as the giant poisonous snake. Some more direct-damage oriented beasts might help things.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 30, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Also, what evidence would you really accept? Is there *anything* Crawford could show you to back up his statement that you would accept?




Well the source data would be a good start...


----------



## Gladius Legis (Aug 30, 2018)

After seeing the PF2 Paladin, I will never again* complain about the 5e Ranger ...

(* OK, this isn't a promise, but still, while the 5e Ranger ceertainly has its serious design flaws, it's a masterpiece compared to some other dumpster fires of classes in other games of the D&D/Pathfinder line. Again, see the PF2 Paladin.)


----------



## Horwath (Aug 30, 2018)

Gladius Legis said:


> After seeing the PF2 Paladin, I will never again* complain about the 5e Ranger ...
> 
> (* OK, this isn't a promise, but still, while the 5e Ranger ceertainly has its serious design flaws, it's a masterpiece compared to some other dumpster fires of classes in other games of the D&D/Pathfinder line. Again, see the PF2 Paladin.)




Like PF2 Ranger is any better


----------



## Gladius Legis (Aug 30, 2018)

Horwath said:


> Like PF2 Ranger is any better




It's a bit underwhelming but not a fundamentally inept mess like the PF2 Paladin is.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 30, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Well the source data would be a good start...




Here is what would happen of WOTC gave over valuable market research source data to a message board public:

1) No matter what the data says, those who don't like their decision will spin it to claim WOTC made a mistake;
2) They will gain no good will from doing it from anyone who doesn't already agree with them;
3) They will set a precedent that they should do that again in the future;
4) Their competitors in the marketplace will have the data they paid to gather for their own use.

We know the first three from how people already react to any data from WOTC of any kind. It's a no-win scenario for them.  

This is also why almost no companies release market research source data to their consumers. It's not smart.

So we're left with you either trust what the people who have access to that data say about it, or you don't. If you don't, releasing that data won't likely change any minds anyway. As almost everyone does trust them already and those who do not will use the data against them anyway, there is no real point to releasing it.


----------



## Satyrn (Aug 30, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> You know, I wouldn't mind some additional animals to choose from. Something like a Coelophysis dinosaur. AC 14, Bite +5, 4d6 damage, pack tactics. That's roughly the same as the giant poisonous snake. Some more direct-damage oriented beasts might help things.




My players get additional animals to choose from. They get skags for example, which are like wolves, but meaner. And rakks have flyby with a far more damaging attack than an owl.

Spiderants, scythids and threshers are also available.

There definitely should be animals available that reinforce the setting's feel.


----------



## Gradine (Aug 30, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> My players get additional animals to choose from. They get skags for example, which are like wolves, but meaner. And rakks have flyby with a far more damaging attack than an owl.
> 
> Spiderants, scythids and threshers are also available.
> 
> There definitely should be animals available that reinforce the setting's feel.




The more I learn about your Borderlands campaign the more I want to learn more about it.


----------



## Satyrn (Aug 30, 2018)

Gradine said:


> The more I learn about your Borderlands campaign the more I want to learn more about it.




Perhaps the most important thing you to know is that when I say something is corrosive, I mean it. Here's a snippet from the corrosive skag:




> *Armor-Corroding Bite.* If the target of the skag's bite is wearing metal armor, the armor becomes lightly corroded. (-1d4)  if the armor is already lightly corroded it becomes moderately corroded (-1d6) ; and moderately corroded armor becomes severely corroded (-1d8). Corroded armor has a penalty die that is rolled each time the wearer is attacked. If this penalty results in the armor providing an AC bonus of 0 or less, the armor is wrecked (magic armor gets a DC 10 death save to avoid this fate).
> 
> *Weapon-Corroding Blood.* A metal weapon that deals damage to a corrosive skag becomes lightly corroded (-1d4). if the weapon is already lightly corroded it becomes moderately corroded (-1d6) ; and a moderately corroded weapon becomes severely corroded (-1d8). A corroded weapon has a penalty die that is rolled each time it deals damage. If a corroded weapon ever deals 0 damage it is wrecked (a magic weapon gets a DC 10 death save to avoid this fate).




Badass corrosive skags have a breath weapon . . . that corrodes all armor and weapons in hand. Rust monsters are cute.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 30, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> There is no way I can reply to that mess you posted. Seriously, you quoted 6-7 people in one post, quoted me many times, but there are many replies to other posters in the same post as your replies to me, with many in between replies to me, and with a mention in reply to someone else? How am I, or anyone else, supposed to parse all that out to reply?




I apologize that you found it confusing. I try very hard not to post 2 or 3 times in a row, so I tend to clump replies together.  If I had realized being quoted at different points in my post would have been confusing for you I would have kept all of your sections together instead of keeping things in chronological order as best as I could. 



Mistwell said:


> "Until level 7 the beast cannot take any action other than attacking without it costing the ranger his entire turn." Which is just plain false. "You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help action. " So you can't command it to attack without costing all your actions any more than you can command it to do anything else without it costing all your actions.




I am not “plain false” by level 7 you have the level 5 ability, which allows the ranger to attack once when the beast uses the attack action. I was working my way backwards and I understand you were confused by my post, but the very next sentence was “And until level 5 they cannot even attack without taking the Ranger’s action” 

But, either way this is the problem. Many of your “solutions” such as “just have the beast use the Help action” are only viable 4 levels into the subclass. Other than attacking, what is the beast supposed to do that is so useful for levels 3, 4, 5, and 6?



Mistwell said:


> "And, how do you think companions knock down foes, poison foes, and ect? Do they not need to make an attack action to do this? Are they not on the frontlines when they do so, since almost no beasts have a ranged attack?" I already responded to that point. There are companions with reach, and with flyby attack, if direct attacking is what you want them to do.  Try the Giant Poisonous Snake or Flying Snake for instance.




Okay, the reach of the Giant Snake is 10ft, so unless you have a box of other characters around that snake, an enemy can still reach them by taking a 5 ft step. Unless you attack and retreat which may be viable, but still means that you are likely less than 30ft away which leaves you vulnerable to being closed in on and being in melee. Hence why wizards and archers generally try and stay further than 30 ft away, so they aren’t on the frontlines of a fight.  

And flyby attack can be great, I’m not denying it. However, your point I was responding to was this “They can be used in combat, but mostly to help the ranger and to do some special things like knocking foes down, poisoning foes, doing a flyby attack on foes, and those sorts of things the ranger has more difficulty doing.”

So, they can be used in combat to do special things, like knock foes down (by making the attack action) or poison foes (which is just damage and is also the attack action) doing a flyby attack on foes (which is just the attack action) and those are things the ranger has a hard time doing… which means the attack action right? Because shooting an enemy with a bow for 1d8+dex mod is far more effective than doing a flyby for 3d4+1 (consider a dex mod of 4, 1d8 gives an average of 4.5 so an average of 8.5 damage. 1d4 is average of 2.5*3 7.5+1 gives us 8.5, but it is poison damage which is more likely to be resisted or ignored and the flyby has to enter melee reach while the bo can be 100 ft away), all the poison is just more damage, and while knocking prone is great, it also necessitates being in melee range constantly since wolves don’t have reach, and knocking an enemy prone can be bad in a party with a lot of ranged attacks. 

So, I don’t see how you have this narrative that beasts are far more useful than their attack before level 7, when everything you list is part of their attack action. Or how you don’t understand how they are frontliners when the best “ranged” options are to move into range then back out which can still leave a combatant vulnerable to being chased down or getting hit with a readied attack. 



Mistwell said:


> "How do you plan on allowing a ranger who focuses on archery to protect a beast like a wolf which is best in melee range?" I don't. I absolutely completely do not expect a beastmaster ranger who wants their pet to focus on melee to themselves focus on archery. Take another sub-class if that's what you want to focus on. Because if you want your pet to focus on melee, then in the very least you need to focus on melee as well to fight beside your companion. This just seems to be one of those "I want it all" type perspectives. You're not going to get it all - with any class. A melee companion expects a melee ranger to be paired with it, or else don't choose a melee companion strategy. You can instead choose a run and gun beast like those mentioned above.




So two points here. 

1) Then your solution is not useful for archers. And considering half or more rangers are likely archers, that aspect of your solution is only useful for about half of all rangers. You might be fine with that as a design, but that doesn’t mean it is not a legitimate criticism that is being leveraged.

2) If you pick one of those snakes, or the owl, what use is the ability to protect them if they get hit in melee? You seem to believe that their abilities will mean they will almost never be in melee, and from my perspective, it leads to the same problem. If you are an Archer, you are likely trying to stay further back from the fighting than your companion who has to close into melee. You’ll rarely be next to your companion to take advantage of that ability.


I don’t think this is “I want it all” to think, what use is this ability when I want to be a ranged combatant. Nothing about Beastmaster says “You must be melee” so it is a legitimate choice to decide I want to use a bow, and that decision is what you are running into, not someone wanting everything. Well, unless you count “I want to use a bow” and “I don’t want my companion to die in melee” as everything. In which case, I suppose it is. 



Mistwell said:


> 4) Their competitors in the marketplace will have the data they paid to gather for their own use.




Moving this up here, per your request to format my posts differently.

Could you possibly explain how data on which 5e classes are the most popular is of any use to a competitor of DnD 5e? 

I mean, unlike companies that make technology for example there is nothing to hide about the creation of DnD 5e, it was a public playtest after all. And the final product lays out exactly what they did for any competitor to buy and analyze for their own use. How they made it isn’t an issue, people know how to write game rules and any language tricks they used would be easily seen by spending the money to buy a book and reading them. 

In fact, just about the only argument I could see is that a competitor might use that data to see what people like, and then design things like that so people will want to buy their thing…  Which I guess costing them some money to do so is a decent strategy, but the thing is most of DnD’s competitors know the biggest selling point of DnD. 

It’s DnD, the oldest Roleplaying Game system out there, the one that started it all. And since their competitors can’t make DnD, they are already at a disadvantage and they all know that. 




Asgorath said:


> Jeremy Crawford said that they have some Hunter changes/fixes coming via the new errata that solve some of the problems they were attempting to address with the UA Revised Ranger.  We'll see once they actually make those errata public, but as others have pointed out, I think there's a very reasonable reading of the Ranger text that allows for your companion to make intelligent choices once you've given it an order, freeing up your action every round to do other stuff like attack as normal.  After all, isn't that one of the complaints people have about the Beast Master, that you have to burn your action every turn to tell your companion to attack?




Oh, it total is. I guess I’m just used to Errata being used to refer to small clarifications in the rules, or fixing misprints. This is neither of those, this would be rewriting the rules entirely. 

Just a confusion of terms I suppose. 





Jester David said:


> No it’s not.
> Slightly underpowered maybe. But “incredibly poor” is pure hyperbole.
> 
> The beast master is so-so, but the ranger itself is fine. Especially for its first dozen levels (aka 90% of the levels that will actually see play). The hunter ranger is far from the weakest character option and can out-damage a fighter at many levels. (To say nothing of the _Guide to Everything_ options.)
> ...




I don’t know, I think incredibly poor is a fairly accurate assessment. 

Yeah, Hunter’s damage is fine. But there 1st level abilities are pretty terrible, advantage on tracking specific enemies is hardly useful in most campaigns (and tracking creatures like oozes, elementals and giants is either non-existent or laughably easy in a lot of cases. ) Having expertise only when in their favored terrain for skills they already picked is pretty poor when compared to other skill related abilities, like… expertise which is active constantly or jack of all trades which boosts non-proficent skills. Their spells being known instead of prepared is an absolute mess since many of their spells are highly situational, and they get incredibly few spells in total. Primeval awareness is simply horrible by pure RAW unless the DM is very generous in the reading, and it costs you spell slots to use which is just insulting with how little information you can actually get. Hide in Plain Sight might get used once, and it is for solo missions in a group game, and Foe Slayer is only useful for an accuracy boost against a small selection of enemies which you may or may not be facing. 

So, yeah, incredibly poor. Not unplayable, I’ve never said that myself, but it is hardly fun if you end up in a party who built for the same things and constantly outshines you. 



Jester David said:


> :/
> Why on EARTH would they say “because the internet said so”?!? That’s not a thing anyone has said ever in the history of humanity.




You far underestimate humanity. In particular, a lot of people here defending JC seem to be saying we all think the Ranger is bad just “because the internet said so”… pick your poisons carefully my friend. 



Jester David said:


> Okay, so let’s just proceed assuming the ranger IS unequivocally weak. So what? There’s always going to be a weakest option. If they revise and fix the ranger, then another class will become the weakest.
> Will we need to fix the next weakest option after?




We’ve been around this slippery slope argument quite a few times. I’m not engaging with it yet again. 



Jester David said:


> Here’s the thing… despite being ridiculously weak compared to the wizard, cleric, and druid, people STILL played fighters in 3e. The fighter was always one of the most popular classes. And the variance in power level between a mid level wizard and a fighter in 3e/Pathfinder was ridiculously larger than the difference between the ranger and other classes in 5e. The disparity is well within the margin of error.




So, there was never any call to do better than the 3e fighter. That’s amusing since one of the big things I remember being discussed in the playtest for 5e was how to NOT repeat the mistakes made with the 3e fighter. 

But, it was popular so I guess all of those criticisms were baseless lies propagated by the internet. 

After all popularity is more important than anything else for deciding what the design needs to be. 




Jester David said:


> That’s nice.
> How many people? Again, was it 1,000? Because otherwise the sample size is too small to remotely be relevant.
> 
> You also have a obvious sampling bias. First, you’re innately going to remember threads and posts that  match your opinions and skim over the ones that don’t. Second, the people who don’t find their character weak and don't switch aren’t going to post.




And you love appealing to “the masses” and relying on appeals to authority. I know I cannot objectively prove the majority opinion. I know that the majority opinion probably doesn’t care. 

But telling someone “your voice is too small so your opinion doesn’t matter, suck it up” doesn’t mean you are right, and surprisingly, it doesn’t get people to agree with you. 



Jester David said:


> How else do you get the class out to people?
> 
> The vast majority of players don’t visit the forums or the website or follow the designers on Twitter. Jeremy Crawford only has 46,000 followers. That’s only 0.3% of the D&D audience.
> They could put out a revision of the class, and most players would not see it.
> ...




Wait, the only possible way to get a fix to a class is to release an entirely new edition because most people aren’t online so they won’t know about it. How would they know about a new editions being released? 

Better yet why do we have DnD Beyond, DMsGuild, Unearthed Arcana, Sage Advice, podcasts, livestreams, or literally any other thing on the internet that WoTC is devoting time and effort towards? It will only ever reach .3% of the audience so it isn’t worth it to continue. 

Heck, I bet my local gaming store only sells DnD to about a thousand people, STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFIGANT, we should stop spending the money to send them books and only focus on the bigger markets. 

You’ve taken your argument of popularity to absurd heights. If they utilized their online resources, people would learn about it. It would spread to the people who cared enough to look, and then those people would tell others the next time the ranger came up in conversation. That is how communication works. And if it doesn’t reach every single person, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t worth the time and effort to put out the fix, so when someone does look, they can easily find that there was a solution provided. 



Jester David said:


> What point isn’t true?




So, we are going to ignore the tweet where he said that the problem was a vocal minority on the internet and that releasing the Revised Ranger only exacerbated the “perception” there was a problem. 

As in, there wasn’t really a problem, it wasn’t a real problem, it was a fake problem created by a vocal minority on the internet. 

Not that our perceptions are valid, that our perceptions are false. 

But, I’m sure I should take that in the best possible light of just being unpopular. 



Jester David said:


> It’s not that what you believe is a lie, it’s that not everyone has the same belief.
> If someone tells me that vanilla isn’t the best iced cream flavour I don’t say they’re calling me a liar and saying that I’m wrong.




You  also don’t go on the internet and say that sales of chocolate topping Wal-marts ice cream sales for the month was all a lie perpetrated by vanilla haters to trick people into thinking that vanilla needs improving to keep up. 



Jester David said:


> Also, what evidence would you really accept? Is there *anything* Crawford could show you to back up his statement that you would accept?




That the Ranger is popular? I don’t care. 

That the Beastmaster ranger is Popular? I guess if I could see the exact survey numbers that showed the Beastmaster getting a large percentage of votes for classes people enjoy actually playing, along with survey data showing the majority of people would prefer no changes to the beastmaster because they believe it to work just fine.

That the Beastmaster Ranger works mechanically? Something pretty dang persuasive since after all this discussion almost no one has defended that position and the few attempts made have been incredibly poor at best. Likely, there is nothing he could point to, but I would try and keep an open mind about it. 



Jester David said:


> Why would the next be perfect?




Why do you think “I want this to be better” means “I want this to be perfect”? 

We’ll never create something perfect. It can’t be done. But that doesn’t mean we need to settle for this.


----------



## Laurefindel (Aug 30, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> You know, I wouldn't mind some additional animals to choose from.




since we're going meta with the animal companion anyway, I wouldn't mind having a choice of (three?) generic animal templates to chose from, then apply one trait representing the specific animal (wolf has pack tactics, bear has more hp, owl has flyby, panther has pounce etc). Probably an unpopular opinion, but I believe it would be easier to design a suitable (and balanced?) companion for the ranger without messing with wild animal "monsters" of the DMG.


----------



## Satyrn (Aug 30, 2018)

Laurefindel said:


> since we're going meta with the animal companion anyway, I wouldn't mind having a choice of (three?) generic animal templates to chose from, then apply one trait representing the specific animal (wolf has pack tactics, bear has more hp, owl has flyby, panther has pounce etc). Probably an unpopular opinion, but I believe it would be easier to design a suitable (and balanced?) companion for the ranger without messing with wild animal "monsters" of the DMG.




This is totally doable.

I've seen the idea written up here before . . . though it might have been for wildshape forms instead, but that's much the same thing.


----------



## Asgorath (Aug 30, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> Oh, it total is. I guess I’m just used to Errata being used to refer to small clarifications in the rules, or fixing misprints. This is neither of those, this would be rewriting the rules entirely.
> 
> Just a confusion of terms I suppose.




Is it, though?  What if their intent all along was that the Beast Master's companion would act intelligently, where the Ranger would use their action to give the order to attack in the first round, and then subsequent rounds would be able to attack alongside their companion (i.e. it kept following the order to the best of its ability, until directed otherwise).  This is exactly the kind of thing they fix with errata, as it's not tossing the entire subclass and rewriting it from scratch.  That's my expectation based on JC's comments on Dragon Talk, where he said they had found a way to fix a number of issues via the errata process rather than going down the route of a Revised Ranger.

That is, they could simply change this:

"The beast obeys your commands as best as it can. It takes its turn on your initiative, though it doesn’t take an action unless you command it to."

to something like this:

"The beast obeys your commands as best as it can. It takes its turn on your initiative, though it doesn’t take an action unless you command it to. It then continues to perform that action until otherwise directed."

then a fairly major concern about Beast Masters (the action economy) is essentially resolved, right?

PS - Please don't combine replies to several people into one message.  If you need to reply to a bunch of posts, at least keeping to one reply per post makes subsequent quotes of your replies much easier to manage.


----------



## Yunru (Aug 30, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> So we're left with you either trust what the people who have access to that data say about it, or you don't.




Which leaves us with an unprovable assertation that a certain member of staff at WotC is already doing 1 in the opposite direction.


----------



## Jester David (Aug 30, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> And you love appealing to “the masses” and relying on appeals to authority. I know I cannot objectively prove the majority opinion. I know that the majority opinion probably doesn’t care.



That's not how "appeal to the masses" or _argumentum ad populum_ works. 
That fallacy applies to someone saying "X" is true because the majority of people believe "X". It's the "50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong" fallacy.

I'm not saying the ranger isn't problematic. Or not weak. 
I'm not saying the class couldn't have tighter design.
I'm not saying that you're wrong to not like the ranger. 

What I am saying is that for a fix to be done to the game, there needs to be a critical mass of players who are having _actual problems _at their tables. Because issuing a fix will also cause disagreements and problems at tables, and if more people end up inconvenienced because of the fix than are helped, than the net result was negative.
And I'm also saying that WotC has looked at the number of players who are playing rangers, compared that with the number of players who complained about rangers, and decided that work on a revision would cause more problems than it would solve. And that even starting work on a ranger revision has just let to more dissatisfaction.



Chaosmancer said:


> But telling someone “your voice is too small so your opinion doesn’t matter, suck it up” doesn’t mean you are right, and surprisingly, it doesn’t get people to agree with you.



I don't need you to agree with me. You agreeing with me and $2 gets me a cup of coffee. 
And I'm not the person you need to get agreeing with you. 

That doesn't mean your opinion doesn't matter. It matters to you. It just doesn't matter to anyone else. Why would it?

Also... would you really _WANT _WotC to listen to small subsets of the fanbase over the majority?



Chaosmancer said:


> That the Ranger is popular? I don’t care.
> 
> That the Beastmaster ranger is Popular? I guess if I could see the exact survey numbers that showed the Beastmaster getting a large percentage of votes for classes people enjoy actually playing, along with survey data showing the majority of people would prefer no changes to the beastmaster because they believe it to work just fine.
> 
> That the Beastmaster Ranger works mechanically? Something pretty dang persuasive since after all this discussion almost no one has defended that position and the few attempts made have been incredibly poor at best. Likely, there is nothing he could point to, but I would try and keep an open mind about it.



We're not talking about the beast master. 
Where does Crawford mention the beast master? Nowhere in the tweets is the beast master even _hinted _at. 
The beast master is completely irrelevant to this conversation. 

If the beast master is broken, you fix that subclass and not the class as a whole. Or make a new ranger pet subclass. Or don't and just let people pick from other subclasses.


----------



## OB1 (Aug 30, 2018)

Just thought of something. The bladelock was considered underpowered, and so a new patron was created to help with that. It cost resources by not allowing you to pick another patron if you wanted to be the best bladelock possible, and I don’t remember a huge outcry about it. 
So again I ask, why can’t spells and feats be used to do the same thing for Beastmaster Rangers. Yes it means giving up other things, just as it does for Warlocks, but if the net result is a higher power class option for a certain style of play without having to rewrite anything, isn’t it worth it?


----------



## Asgorath (Aug 31, 2018)

Jester David said:


> We're not talking about the beast master.
> Where does Crawford mention the beast master? Nowhere in the tweets is the beast master even _hinted _at.
> The beast master is completely irrelevant to this conversation.
> 
> If the beast master is broken, you fix that subclass and not the class as a whole. Or make a new ranger pet subclass. Or don't and just let people pick from other subclasses.




Actually, there's at least one Sage Advice section on Dragon Talk where he specifically talks about the Beast Master as the real problem that needs to be fixed.  He said they don't need to toss the PHB Ranger and redesign it from scratch if the only real problem is with the Beast Master.  The other Ranger subclasses, particularly the ones in XGtE, seem generally okay.  I think his point was that if the Beast Master is broken, then they should focus on fixing that rather than continuing along the path of the UA Revised Ranger.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 31, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> Okay, the reach of the Giant Snake is 10ft, so unless you have a box of other characters around that snake, an enemy can still reach them by taking a 5 ft step.




There are no "5 foot step" rules in this game. The Snake attacks from 10ft away and withdraws. If a foe follows, they draw an attack of opportunity from an even deadlier and closer foe. The snake has a 30' move. The game is well adjusted for this sort of tactic - after all there is an entire Rogue type of strategy built around it. It's the purpose of reach. Of course it's not perfect - NO strategy is ever perfect. But, it's pretty darn good.



> So, they can be used in combat to do special things, like knock foes down (by making the attack action) or poison foes (which is just damage and is also the attack action) doing a flyby attack on foes (which is just the attack action) and those are things the ranger has a hard time doing… which means the attack action right? Because shooting an enemy with a bow for 1d8+dex mod is far more effective than doing a flyby for 3d4+1 (consider a dex mod of 4, 1d8 gives an average of 4.5 so an average of 8.5 damage. 1d4 is average of 2.5*3 7.5+1 gives us 8.5, but it is poison damage which is more likely to be resisted or ignored and the flyby has to enter melee reach while the bo can be 100 ft away)




If your plan is to be an archer, do not be a beastmaster. It's as simple as that. The Beastmaster just is not the archer subclass. There is no point to you arguing you want a melee engaged companion if you plan on keeping your ranger out of melee. Pick a strategy.



> 1) Then your solution is not useful for archers.




You're darn right it's not. YOU are the one demanding a melee engaged companion. You can do that - but not if you also want a ranger attacking from range. You will not get it all. You can have either melee or ranged, but the beastmaster is structured such that you cannot have both, and I happen to think that's a very smart way for them to have created it. You want a companion fighting in melee, cool. Then like the description of the sub-class says, "you gain a beast companion that accompanies you on your adventures *and is trained to fight alongside you*."



> I don’t think this is “I want it all” to think, what use is this ability when I want to be a ranged combatant.




I do. In this game you can either be a ranged attacker or a melee attacker. You want to be both simultaneous (and you want each to be equally powerful as well). Yes, that is "I want it all" thinking. It's a beast companion. You can do all sorts of things with them outside of combat, but if you want it to do MELEE combat, then you need to fight alongside it for it to be effective. And that's a fair way to structure the class.



> Nothing about Beastmaster says “You must be melee”




And nothing about the companion says "You must fight melee" either. YOU are the one demanding that your companion choose that strategy. OK, then you MUST also be melee to use it effectively. 



> Could you possibly explain how data on which 5e classes are the most popular is of any use to a competitor of DnD 5e?




For a competitor in beta right now about which classes to support and which to not support? I think you can figure that out.


----------



## ad_hoc (Aug 31, 2018)

Hexblade is ridiculously overpowered. It is the best patron for every type of Warlock. It is also devoid of theme.

Hexblade is an example where listening to the people on the internet goes horribly wrong.

The thing is, blade pact is just fine. It allows you to have a good option in melee. The pacts are minor bonuses. Even more minor than the beast master. People look at blade pact and say it is underpowered without looking at the other pacts, same with beast master.


----------



## OB1 (Aug 31, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> Hexblade is ridiculously overpowered. It is the best patron for every type of Warlock. It is also devoid of theme.
> 
> Hexblade is an example where listening to the people on the internet goes horribly wrong.
> 
> The thing is, blade pact is just fine. It allows you to have a good option in melee. The pacts are minor bonuses. Even more minor than the beast master. People look at blade pact and say it is underpowered without looking at the other pacts, same with beast master.




Agree with all of this. My point was that the Beastmaster companion can be made more powerful without a revision or rewrite of the class through trade off of other class features that already allow for this kind of cusomization (ie spells and feats). 

Revising a class was a horrible idea that I’m glad died. Giving more options to players (hopefully without the amount of power creep in the Hexblade) is worthwhile.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 31, 2018)

Something else I'd like to see as additional rules: better barding clarifications. Right now the DMG says any animal can have barding made for them. However it doesn't say how proficiency works with it. Are all animals automatically proficient with any armor made specifically for them? Are none of the proficient and therefore they all have disadvantage while attacking in armor? Can they be trained in armor using animal handling checks to become proficient? Is it like a downtime activity similar to tools?

Because if you could put plate armor on a giant poisonous snake, suddenly they're a lot more powerful


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 31, 2018)

Asgorath said:


> Is it, though?  What if their intent all along was that the Beast Master's companion would act intelligently, where the Ranger would use their action to give the order to attack in the first round, and then subsequent rounds would be able to attack alongside their companion (i.e. it kept following the order to the best of its ability, until directed otherwise).  This is exactly the kind of thing they fix with errata, as it's not tossing the entire subclass and rewriting it from scratch.  That's my expectation based on JC's comments on Dragon Talk, where he said they had found a way to fix a number of issues via the errata process rather than going down the route of a Revised Ranger.
> 
> That is, they could simply change this:
> 
> ...





Fair enough on the multiple quotes. 


And I agree that would solve the action economy, however, the rules currently lead to this situation: You must command the beast to move (doesn’t take an action) and command the beast to take an action (takes an action)

The current change you are talking about does not change needing to tell the beast to move, which is fine in terms of the action economy, but then it becomes a weird game logic problem. You tell the wolf to attack the goblins, does it only attack the goblins next to it? If you move it next to an orc will it attack the orc? 

And I know the undead work this way, and I know we can make it work at the table, but then it becomes a question of why does it cost your first action every fight to command your beast to attack? It feels weird.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 31, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Also... would you really _WANT _WotC to listen to small subsets of the fanbase over the majority?




Normally that answer would be no. However, WoTC admitted there was a problem, there data said there were enough dissatisfied people to warrant a fix. 

Then they dragged their feet until the player base changed enough it was no longer enough people. 

This completely changes the dynamic you are talking about. There has been a small subset talking about getting a Warlord fighter since 5e came out. If WoTC suddenly agreed to work on it, saying a signifigant portion of the fanbase wanted it, then two years later said “Our player base has changed, Warlords are no longer popular enough, we’re stopping work on the Warlord class” people would be furious and it would be a black eye for the company because they said they would do something, then took too long and backed out. 

And that is kind of what has happened here. They heard the community saying the Ranger needed work. No one so far has said the Ranger is as good as it could be. And the people who were calling for that change didn’t go away, we didn’t get what WoTC indicated they would give us. Instead we are now being told it was just a vocal minority who was never really right, and with the new swell of players we aren’t important enough to finish the work they started. 



Jester David said:


> We're not talking about the beast master.
> Where does Crawford mention the beast master? Nowhere in the tweets is the beast master even _hinted _at.
> The beast master is completely irrelevant to this conversation.
> 
> If the beast master is broken, you fix that subclass and not the class as a whole. Or make a new ranger pet subclass. Or don't and just let people pick from other subclasses.




We’ve been talking about the Beastmaster a lot, actually. 

Crawford in his tweet said “There is only one Ranger, the one in the Player’s Handbook”. Half of the Player’s Handbook Ranger is the Beastmaster. Are you wanting to claim that half of the core Ranger is irrelevant to a discussion about the Ranger? Do we get to just ignore things that don’t work because we can just make more things that do work?

What if they release the Eberron setting and it is as bad a setting as the Beastmaster is a subclass, should we be satisfied with the argument “Well, they can just make more settings, or a different setting with the same themes, or you could just play a different setting.” Do those excuse poor quality work? 

And, we can expand the discussion to other ranger features. I gave a quick list and we all know the debates that have been had over them. Heck, I recognize that the Revised Ranger doesn’t even fix a lot of the complaints that are the worse for the Ranger as a skill class about tracking, but it is better at least.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 31, 2018)

OB1 said:


> Just thought of something. The bladelock was considered underpowered, and so a new patron was created to help with that. It cost resources by not allowing you to pick another patron if you wanted to be the best bladelock possible, and I don’t remember a huge outcry about it.
> So again I ask, why can’t spells and feats be used to do the same thing for Beastmaster Rangers. Yes it means giving up other things, just as it does for Warlocks, but if the net result is a higher power class option for a certain style of play without having to rewrite anything, isn’t it worth it?




I would wonder if the Bladelock is one of the first things you think about when you picture a warlock, and I don’t think it is. Not nearly as central as the idea of the Beastmaster is at least. 

And, we are talking a different type of design. Warlocks are designed with lots of moving parts to swap (spells, cantrips, pacts, boons, invocations, feats) swapping out one part of that is a much smaller cost than it is for the ranger who has only three (subclass, spells, feats) and I don’t think this gets stressed enough, Rangers only get 11 spells known. We can put some perspective on that, Warlocks get 8 invocations, they get almost as many invocations as a Ranger gets spells, but their invocations are only a 1/6 of their options while spells are 1/3 of the rangers. They are highly valuable.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 31, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> There are no "5 foot step" rules in this game. The Snake attacks from 10ft away and withdraws. If a foe follows, they draw an attack of opportunity from an even deadlier and closer foe. The snake has a 30' move. The game is well adjusted for this sort of tactic - after all there is an entire Rogue type of strategy built around it. It's the purpose of reach. Of course it's not perfect - NO strategy is ever perfect. But, it's pretty darn good.




My fault for not being clear. If an enemy wants to close on an opponent who is attacking with reach, they only need to move 5ft. 

And you are right, the enemy might be next to another opponent and be unable to follow the snake. but moving in an out of combat means that with that 30 ft, they are only able to stick 20 ft away (15 ft move, 5 ft reach) that is still in the danger zone of melee combat. And if you end up in a bad position because you used too much movement, the enemy can simply circle your more dangerous PC, and be in reach of the snake. 

It is a good strategy, but it isn’t a strategy without weaknesses, and it shouldn’t be the only strategy that is viable for Beastmasters, they should have more viable strategies than that one. 




Mistwell said:


> If your plan is to be an archer, do not be a beastmaster. It's as simple as that. The Beastmaster just is not the archer subclass. There is no point to you arguing you want a melee engaged companion if you plan on keeping your ranger out of melee. Pick a strategy.
> 
> You're darn right it's not. YOU are the one demanding a melee engaged companion. You can do that - but not if you also want a ranger attacking from range. You will not get it all. You can have either melee or ranged, but the beastmaster is structured such that you cannot have both, and I happen to think that's a very smart way for them to have created it. You want a companion fighting in melee, cool. Then like the description of the sub-class says, "you gain a beast companion that accompanies you on your adventures *and is trained to fight alongside you*."




So there is no precedent for an Archer with a Hawk or Owl companion? No concept of tag-teaming by covering both far range and melee. 

Hell, hunting dogs were trained to chase down prey while people with guns or bows went for the kill shot. 

But sure, your PHB says that if you want a beast companion you must be a melee character. Just be aware, no one else feels that Rangers should be limited that much. 

And to turn to this point, are you now insisting that “trained to fight alongside you” literally means right next to you. Thought that discussion was had and you were on the other side of that fence. 

And why is it smart to design it that way, but nowhere state it as a fact? Nothing prevents it in the current beastmaster. * YOU * are the one stating that beastmaster’s can’t be archers, beasts have always been melee options, we just want them to be decent at it to make * an entire subclass and theme work as intended *



Mistwell said:


> I do. In this game you can either be a ranged attacker or a melee attacker. You want to be both simultaneous (and you want each to be equally powerful as well). Yes, that is "I want it all" thinking. It's a beast companion. You can do all sorts of things with them outside of combat, but if you want it to do MELEE combat, then you need to fight alongside it for it to be effective. And that's a fair way to structure the class.




Can you point to me where it says fighters lose access to bows when they decide to wield a sword? Do mages forget all ranged spells if they take Shocking Grasp or Vampiric Touch? 

There is no “You must pick melee or ranged, you cannot do both”. If you want to give us beasts that have ranged attacks, then go ahead. But, you are the only one who somehow thinks there must be this one or the other design. We have no choice about Beasts in melee, there isn’t some other beast we can get, so yes, we want them to survive melee, since that is the only place they can be in combat. Heck, I can even prove “Reach” is a melee option, know how? Every single Reach weapon in the game is a melee weapon. There are no weapons with the Reach property listed as ranged weapons. Because that makes no sense, the Reach property just allows people to attack in melee while not immediately next to an enemy. 

And let us not forget, we’ve already covered how the beast’s utility is far below that of the Find Familiar spell, a first level ritual that only costs the user gold, and not even that much gold. So, unless you can prove that Familiar’s are not better utility options in every way than an Animal Companion, they are a combat option. As a combat option, they only have melee attacks (even if one option can attack at reach) and so should they not be able to survive melee?




Mistwell said:


> And nothing about the companion says "You must fight melee" either. YOU are the one demanding that your companion choose that strategy. OK, then you MUST also be melee to use it effectively.




Show me a single beast that can attack an enemy from further than 30 ft away. One. Not a fly-by attack that allows them to leave melee range after their attack. Not a reach of 10 ft which only puts them one step away from the enemy (and therefore still in melee). Show me a single animal companion option that can attack from 30 ft away by RAW. Then I will agree that * we * are insisting companions be in melee instead of it being * the rules * insisting on it. 



Mistwell said:


> Something else I'd like to see as additional rules: better barding clarifications. Right now the DMG says any animal can have barding made for them. However it doesn't say how proficiency works with it. Are all animals automatically proficient with any armor made specifically for them? Are none of the proficient and therefore they all have disadvantage while attacking in armor? Can they be trained in armor using animal handling checks to become proficient? Is it like a downtime activity similar to tools?





It is implied that animals need proficiency in Barding, because warhorses are specifically called out as being able to wear barding.


----------



## Grognerd (Aug 31, 2018)

Ok, I've been quiet since it largely seems to me like we are well past the point of beating a dead horse, resurrecting it, beating it again, making it undead, then beating it again! I'd argue that very cogent arguments have been presented, but the majority of them at this point - _*to my perception*_ - have become fruitless. It really does seem - _*to my perception*_ - that the revision crowd won't be satisfied until they get a companion to their PCs that is an equal peer. Not saying that's what you want. But the arguments that are being used, and far more importantly, the rejection of _every single alternative_ that has been very reasonably presented lends that impression.

But cool. Forums are for arguing... oops, debating!

But this is simply untrue:


Chaosmancer said:


> But sure, your PHB says that if you want a beast companion you must be a melee character. Just be aware, no one else feels that Rangers should be limited that much.




I think you meant to say "not everyone else feels..." Because I for one think that it is a reasonable limit. And I'm someone.

Then there is this...


> And why is it smart to design it that way, but nowhere state it as a fact? Nothing prevents it in the current beastmaster. * YOU * are the one stating that beastmaster’s can’t be archers, beasts have always been melee options, we just want them to be decent at it to make * an entire subclass and theme work as intended *




You want a theme to work as WHO intended? Yeah... you do seem to be wanting to both have and eat cake, just saying...

Your case isn't helped with this bit of disingenuous obfuscation:


> Can you point to me where it says fighters lose access to bows when they decide to wield a sword? Do mages forget all ranged spells if they take Shocking Grasp or Vampiric Touch?
> 
> There is no “You must pick melee or ranged, you cannot do both”.




Mistwell never said you can't do both Melee and Ranged. He called you out that you seem to want *both* melee and ranged _in equal measure_, which is a fair call-out. He was pointing out that you need to decide where your priority lies. And you seem to want equal power in both realms.

But to avoid being completely negative...


> And let us not forget, we’ve already covered how the beast’s utility is far below that of the Find Familiar spell, a first level ritual that only costs the user gold, and not even that much gold. So, unless you can prove that Familiar’s are not better utility options in every way than an Animal Companion, they are a combat option.




I think this is a good point.


----------



## Asgorath (Aug 31, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> Fair enough on the multiple quotes.
> 
> 
> And I agree that would solve the action economy, however, the rules currently lead to this situation: You must command the beast to move (doesn’t take an action) and command the beast to take an action (takes an action)
> ...




If you give the order to "attack those Goblins over there", then yeah, a reasonable interpretation would be that the companion attacks them all until they are dead.  If one Goblin dies, then it just moves to the next one, probably just picking the closest one.  This seems very reasonable, particularly for an intelligent beast.  You shouldn't have to say "Okay move 10 feet in that direction, now attack that Goblin.  Good boy!  Now move 5 feet to your right.  No that's too far.  Okay now attack that other Goblin.  Great, you killed it, now run over there.  Wait that's too far again.  Now attack that Goblin who's now in front of you" and so if they are going to errata this part of the rules to make it clear that you can in fact just give the order to "attack those Goblins over there" and then your companion will do its best to follow that order on subsequent turns, that would be a pretty good change in my opinion.  Similarly, if there are 4 Goblins and 1 Orc, then an intelligent creature could reasonably assume you meant to attack them all, and would include the Orc in its target list.

Another good option would be to make it clear you can order your companion to just follow and assist you, i.e. just attack whatever you are attacking.  Again, the companion should be an intelligent creature, not a mindless undead creature.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the new errata says, but I'm suspecting it'll be something along these lines in order to free up the Ranger's actions on subsequent turns and let the companion continue to follow an order in a reasonable manner.


----------



## OB1 (Aug 31, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> I would wonder if the Bladelock is one of the first things you think about when you picture a warlock, and I don’t think it is. Not nearly as central as the idea of the Beastmaster is at least.
> 
> And, we are talking a different type of design. Warlocks are designed with lots of moving parts to swap (spells, cantrips, pacts, boons, invocations, feats) swapping out one part of that is a much smaller cost than it is for the ranger who has only three (subclass, spells, feats) and I don’t think this gets stressed enough, Rangers only get 11 spells known. We can put some perspective on that, Warlocks get 8 invocations, they get almost as many invocations as a Ranger gets spells, but their invocations are only a 1/6 of their options while spells are 1/3 of the rangers. They are highly valuable.




Yes, and you pick those spells to mold the Ranger into your vision of how you want to play it.  The choices are limited because the class isn't supposed to be as versatile as a full caster due to it's other strengths.

If a new set of spells tailored to Beastmasters both enhanced your companion and were as powerful or slightly more powerful than the existing spell choices, why wouldn't that be a satisfactory resolution?


----------



## Jester David (Aug 31, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> Normally that answer would be no. However, WoTC admitted there was a problem, there data said there were enough dissatisfied people to warrant a fix.
> 
> Then they dragged their feet until the player base changed enough it was no longer enough people.
> 
> ...



I'll agree that they dragged their feet. But continuing to work on a projected fewer and fewer people want isn't a good business decision. "Obligation" isn't a good reason to release a product. 

If they started work on a trilogy and the reception to the first release was cool, they shouldn't be obligated to finish. 
Especially as it will literally be coming at the expense of content that the current audience DOES want. There's a finite amount of hours in the day, and they can only log so many hours of work. 

Yes, it sucks that they didn't spend a tonne of money on manhours releasing free content for an increasingly small percentage of the audience. 
And yes, it's a black eye. But a much smaller black eye than releasing a low quality book for the larger audience because they were focusing on the ranger. 


Really, this is why WotC was so secretive in the late 3e/ 4e era. Because when they changed their plans people got upset. So, the "mistake" they made was keeping the fans in the loop. 
And, personally, I'd rather have the company reactive and responsive to changes and shifting feedback than maintaining a plan years after it was devised. 



Chaosmancer said:


> We’ve been talking about the Beastmaster a lot, actually.
> 
> Crawford in his tweet said “There is only one Ranger, the one in the Player’s Handbook”. Half of the Player’s Handbook Ranger is the Beastmaster. Are you wanting to claim that half of the core Ranger is irrelevant to a discussion about the Ranger? Do we get to just ignore things that don’t work because we can just make more things that do work?



I could say very similar things about the PHB sorcerer given how unpopular wild magic is. Should they redo the sorcerer as well? There's a bunch of fixes they could do (bloodlines giving spells, rephrasing metamagic). 
Or… they could just release more options, which largely fixes the problem. 

Regardless, the beast master isn't "half" the ranger. It's half the options, but maybe a quarter of the class features. Less if you include spells. 
So redoing the entire ranger to fix the beast master is unnecessary. 

What they *should* do is just offer a variant pet using ranger subclass. This skirts all the problems with releasing a variant ranger, as people are used to additive options. Drop an "animal lord" that fills the same niche but has slightly different flavour and variant powers. Which lets people play that kind of character, but doesn't confuse people with contradictory options or forces players to revise their character. 
Heck, they could even have two. Have a "warg" option that is more utility and lets the ranger see through the eyes of its pet, which is more of a hardy familiar. And a combat pet option, with the beast being all about kicking butt. 



Chaosmancer said:


> What if they release the Eberron setting and it is as bad a setting as the Beastmaster is a subclass, should we be satisfied with the argument “Well, they can just make more settings, or a different setting with the same themes, or you could just play a different setting.” Do those excuse poor quality work?



If the response to a poor quality product is for them to release it again and make even more money… what's the incentive to get it right the first time?


----------



## Satyrn (Aug 31, 2018)

Jester David said:


> What they *should* do is just offer a variant pet using ranger subclass. This skirts all the problems with releasing a variant ranger, as people are used to additive options. Drop an "animal lord" that fills the same niche but has slightly different flavour and variant powers. Which lets people play that kind of character, but doesn't confuse people with contradictory options or forces players to revise their character.
> Heck, they could even have two. Have a "warg" option that is more utility and lets the ranger see through the eyes of its pet, which is more of a hardy familiar. And a combat pet option, with the beast being all about kicking butt.



It might also work if they offered some beasts that were at the top of CR 1/4.

49 hit points and 1d10 damage sounds pretty good to me (noting that the beast gets a damage bonus equal to the ranger's proficiency)


----------



## Yunru (Aug 31, 2018)

Jester David said:


> I'll agree that they dragged their feet. But continuing to work on a projected fewer and fewer people want isn't a good business decision.



Except it's not fewer people, it's a lesser percentage, but that's due to more people total, not less in a camp.

Hell, the two sets aren't even that comparable, given that the source of data and questions asked a different in both cases. One asks how many rangers does their one specific program have created on it, the other asked how those who could be bothered to fill in a form felt about the ranger.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 1, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> So there is no precedent for an Archer with a Hawk or Owl companion? No concept of tag-teaming by covering both far range and melee. Hell, hunting dogs were trained to chase down prey while people with guns or bows went for the kill shot. But sure, your PHB says that if you want a beast companion you must be a melee character. Just be aware, no one else feels that Rangers should be limited that much. And to turn to this point, are you now insisting that “trained to fight alongside you” literally means right next to you. Thought that discussion was had and you were on the other side of that fence. And why is it smart to design it that way, but nowhere state it as a fact? Nothing prevents it in the current beastmaster. * YOU * are the one stating that beastmaster’s can’t be archers, beasts have always been melee options, we just want them to be decent at it to make * an entire subclass and theme work as intended * Can you point to me where it says fighters lose access to bows when they decide to wield a sword? Do mages forget all ranged spells if they take Shocking Grasp or Vampiric Touch? There is no “You must pick melee or ranged, you cannot do both”. If you want to give us beasts that have ranged attacks, then go ahead. But, you are the only one who somehow thinks there must be this one or the other design. We have no choice about Beasts in melee, there isn’t some other beast we can get, so yes, we want them to survive melee, since that is the only place they can be in combat. Heck, I can even prove “Reach” is a melee option, know how? Every single Reach weapon in the game is a melee weapon. There are no weapons with the Reach property listed as ranged weapons. Because that makes no sense, the Reach property just allows people to attack in melee while not immediately next to an enemy.  And let us not forget, we’ve already covered how the beast’s utility is far below that of the Find Familiar spell, a first level ritual that only costs the user gold, and not even that much gold. So, unless you can prove that Familiar’s are not better utility options in every way than an Animal Companion, they are a combat option. As a combat option, they only have melee attacks (even if one option can attack at reach) and so should they not be able to survive melee? Show me a single beast that can attack an enemy from further than 30 ft away. One. Not a fly-by attack that allows them to leave melee range after their attack. Not a reach of 10 ft which only puts them one step away from the enemy (and therefore still in melee). Show me a single animal companion option that can attack from 30 ft away by RAW. Then I will agree that * we * are insisting companions be in melee instead of it being * the rules * insisting on it.




The ranger attacking from range while your companion attacks from melee is not well supported by the class. But it's also vastly different from the argument you or anyone else in this thread was making earlier. You've shifted from, "I want a beast that is effective in combat" to "I want my Ranger to be an archer, nice and safe from harm away from the battlefield, while I want my beast companion to mix it up on the front line in melee, and be as effective as I would be in melee".

You can want that of course, but it's asking more than others were asking for previously. And that specific preference isn't well supported right now. But, if your general prior argument, and the argument others made previously, was simply for an animal companion who can be effective in combat, I think I've proven that they can be effective that way. But to do it, you must be a melee ranger as well. 

That will satisfy some, and not others. But now that we've reduced down to a much more specific an less typical strategy preference, I think it's not a very compelling argument. You want to have a combat companion instead of a scouting and helping one, you can. You just can't be an archer while doing it.  If that is a big deal for you, don't choose this subclass. But it's not a strong argument to justify alone altering the entire base class.



> It is implied that animals need proficiency in Barding, because warhorses are specifically called out as being able to wear barding.




Implied but not specified. So it's room to clarify it to provide more protection to animal companions.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Sep 1, 2018)

For those dissatisfied with the Beastmaster, go try the Mahout


----------



## Hussar (Sep 1, 2018)

Look, as much as a 4e fan as I am, I have to admit that 4e is the perfect example of what happens when WotC listens to only a certain subset of gamers to build games.  4e is the RPGA edition of D&D.  It was built almost entirely to satisfy organized play issues.  And they based it on the fact that you have tens of thousands of organized play players, so, they if they want X, then everyone must want X, right?

Well, that proved to be very, very wrong.  So, now WotC is taking a much broader look at what people want.  And, as [MENTION=21556]Jester[/MENTION] Canuck says, until there is a critical mass of players unhappy with the ranger that outnumbers, significantly, those that don't have problems, they aren't going to lift a finger because there is no upside for them.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 1, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Look, as much as a 4e fan as I am, I have to admit that 4e is the perfect example of what happens when WotC listens to only a certain subset of gamers to build games.  4e is the RPGA edition of D&D.  It was built almost entirely to satisfy organized play issues.  And they based it on the fact that you have tens of thousands of organized play players, so, they if they want X, then everyone must want X, right?
> 
> Well, that proved to be very, very wrong.  So, now WotC is taking a much broader look at what people want.  And, as [MENTION=21556]Jester[/MENTION] Canuck says, until there is a critical mass of players unhappy with the ranger that outnumbers, significantly, those that don't have problems, they aren't going to lift a finger because there is no upside for them.




I think their initial experiments show they are willing to work to help a minority, as long as it is a large enough minority and they can be do it in a majority friendly way.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 1, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> I think their initial experiments show they are willing to work to help a minority, as long as it is a large enough minority and they can be do it in a majority friendly way.




I think this says what I've been trying to get at, better than I've been saying it. They will likely offer additional material for those who want something more out of the beastmaster ranger, without changing the base class, for this very reason. It's just not "majority friendly" to re-write the entire class because a minority don't like it as it is right now. But it is "majority friendly" to offer a fighting style, spells, feats, additional animals, barding rules expansion/clarification, and a couple of minor clarifications about how animal companions can continue to do something without orders once they've been given a command to do it first. I doubt the majority will be bothered by those additions, like they probably would be from a re-write of a base class.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Sep 2, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> But this is simply untrue:
> I think you meant to say "not everyone else feels..." Because I for one think that it is a reasonable limit. And I'm someone.
> Then there is this...
> You want a theme to work as WHO intended? Yeah... you do seem to be wanting to both have and eat cake, just saying...




That is a fair enough criticism, if I wanted to be the most clear I could have said “No one who has been arguing this point on this thread before now has indicated a position that would agree with your limitation.” Since we aren’t in a formal setting I tend to occasionally dip into more informal speech. 




Grognerd said:


> Mistwell never said you can't do both Melee and Ranged. He called you out that you seem to want *both* melee and ranged _in equal measure_, which is a fair call-out. He was pointing out that you need to decide where your priority lies. And you seem to want equal power in both realms.




I don’t want to penalize the ranger as a result of fixing a bad design. 

Rangers are currently allowed to choose between wanting to be a melee fighter or a ranged fighter, However, as part of his fix to the beastmaster, he wishes to disregard that potential choice. If you are going to be a Ranged attacker as a Ranger, in his mind you seem to have no business being a Beastmaster. 

Because as I have been pointing out repeatedly, no beastmaster companion is built to be a ranged option. 

I don’t want anything new in terms of the Ranger being ranged or melee, I just want the beast companion to be capable in the niche it was designed to fill, and I don’t see why that requires me to be forced into a fighting style, forced into a choice between ranged and melee combat, and be forced to take a specific group of spells. 

To bring up the sorcerer, it would be like if someone decided that the only time wild magic would activate is if you cast Color Spray, Chromatic orb, or Chaos Bolt. Well, that’s all well and good, but the subclass is designed with the idea of activating Wild Magic Surges, not activating wild magic surges if you happened to pick the correct spells and metamagics. 



Grognerd said:


> But to avoid being completely negative...
> I think this is a good point.




Thank you.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Sep 2, 2018)

Asgorath said:


> If you give the order to "attack those Goblins over there", then yeah, a reasonable interpretation would be that the companion attacks them all until they are dead.  If one Goblin dies, then it just moves to the next one, probably just picking the closest one.  This seems very reasonable, particularly for an intelligent beast.  *You shouldn't have to say "Okay move 10 feet in that direction, now attack that Goblin.  Good boy!  Now move 5 feet to your right.  No that's too far.  Okay now attack that other Goblin.  Great, you killed it, now run over there.  Wait that's too far again.  Now attack that Goblin who's now in front of you"* and so if they are going to errata this part of the rules to make it clear that you can in fact just give the order to "attack those Goblins over there" and then your companion will do its best to follow that order on subsequent turns, that would be a pretty good change in my opinion.  Similarly, if there are 4 Goblins and 1 Orc, then an intelligent creature could reasonably assume you meant to attack them all, and would include the Orc in its target list.
> 
> Another good option would be to make it clear you can order your companion to just follow and assist you, i.e. just attack whatever you are attacking.  Again, the companion should be an intelligent creature, not a mindless undead creature.
> 
> I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the new errata says, but I'm suspecting it'll be something along these lines in order to free up the Ranger's actions on subsequent turns and let the companion continue to follow an order in a reasonable manner.




Two points on this. 

1) How intelligent is an Intelligent creature? A flying snake has an intelligence of 2, while the stupidest mindless undead creature (the zombie) has an intelligence of 3, higher than the animal. In fact, most animals after a quick skimming, have an intelligence of 2 or 3. So, if we need to bring intelligence per the rules into this, that actually hurts both of our cases. 

2) the bolded part, that is exactly how it currently works. You must order the beast to move. You must order the beast to attack. So, an errata that changes it to say that you don't have to keep ordering to to attack would still require that you order it to move. So, the errata, to make logical sense, would mean that once you order it to "kill everyone not in the pack" you would neither have to command it to move or to attack. And by that point, why not just remove the requirement that it takes you action to command the beast? Because, effectively it becomes the action "Activate Beast Companion" which then does not require further input and people would wonder about standing orders and the fact that you can train dogs at least to "Attack when I give this signal" which could be a non-action manuever. After all, how long does a command last for the beast if they just follow it after it was given? 

This is why I feel like you will be disappointed by any errata. The fix you mention, if taken as RAW, creates a mess that simply rewriting the rule does not.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Sep 2, 2018)

OB1 said:


> Yes, and you pick those spells to mold the Ranger into your vision of how you want to play it.  The choices are limited because the class isn't supposed to be as versatile as a full caster due to it's other strengths.
> 
> If a new set of spells tailored to Beastmasters both enhanced your companion and were as powerful or slightly more powerful than the existing spell choices, why wouldn't that be a satisfactory resolution?





It isn’t a satisfactory resolution for exactly what you said in your own post. “The choices [of spells] are limited because the class isn't supposed to be as versatile as a full caster due to it's other strengths.”

Those “other strengths” are its subclass abilities, along with things such as weapon and armor proficiencies. But, let us remember, with only 11 spells known, the Ranger is a worse spellcaster than an Eldritch knight, who gets the same weapons and even more armor profs. So subclass abilities have to be tied into the strength calculated when they reduced the Ranger’s spellcastng. 


And we are taking the ranger’s spellcasting and devoting as much as half of it to improving the strength of the subclass feature.

Because you have A, we will weaken B. 
However, if A is too weak, weaken B to increase A… 

That makes no logical sense. A should be stronger on its own, to justify weakening B.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Sep 2, 2018)

Jester David said:


> I'll agree that they dragged their feet. But continuing to work on a projected fewer and fewer people want isn't a good business decision. "Obligation" isn't a good reason to release a product.




Same number of people, maybe even more. Smaller percentage of people. That is an important distinction. 



Jester David said:


> If they started work on a trilogy and the reception to the first release was cool, they shouldn't be obligated to finish.
> Especially as it will literally be coming at the expense of content that the current audience DOES want. There's a finite amount of hours in the day, and they can only log so many hours of work.




As a fan of Patrick Rothfuss, I must reject your assertion that a trilogy started is not obligated to be finished. In fact, the number of times I’ve been disappointed by a series suddenly without an end drives me to reject that line of thinking almost fully.  

This is also why I would not declare “this is a trilogy” when I released book one, if I wasn’t sure I would go on to finish the rest of the trilogy. You say you are going to do something, you do it. 



Jester David said:


> Really, this is why WotC was so secretive in the late 3e/ 4e era. Because when they changed their plans people got upset. So, the "mistake" they made was keeping the fans in the loop.
> And, personally, I'd rather have the company reactive and responsive to changes and shifting feedback than maintaining a plan years after it was devised.




You know, I agree I would rather a company keep us in the loop and be reactive. 

However, if that means we can’t trust what they say they will deliver because the audience might change, then they have gone from reactive to wishy-washy. 

I mean, they just announced Ravnica and Eberron a little while ago. But they could easily cancel those projects to make more time for the next FR book that the larger percentage of the audience wants. After all, they have only so many man-hours to put towards products and we might get a flood of hardcore FR fans fleeing from PF2 who really don’t care about these products WoTC just said they would do. 

I don’t find that to be acceptable behavior. For myself or for a company. 




Jester David said:


> I could say very similar things about the PHB sorcerer given how unpopular wild magic is. Should they redo the sorcerer as well? There's a bunch of fixes they could do (bloodlines giving spells, rephrasing metamagic).
> Or… they could just release more options, which largely fixes the problem.




Releasing a new subclass does not fix the problems with the sorcerer, and it especially does not fix the issues with the Wild Magic or Draconic Sorcerers. 

 I don’t want to get off track talking about how badly I feel sorcerers need a fix. This is a thread about Rangers. Sorcerers have been high on my list of fixes for a long time though, and I’ve looked into many solutions. I’ve also mostly given up hope that WoTC understands what I see as wrong with the Sorcerer, since they keep doing the exact same thing every time they release a new subclass for it. 



Jester David said:


> Regardless, the beast master isn't "half" the ranger. It's half the options, but maybe a quarter of the class features. Less if you include spells.
> So redoing the entire ranger to fix the beast master is unnecessary.




Half the ranger options, you can be a Hunter or you can be a Beastmaster. 

Sure, all Rangers might get a bunch other abilities, but you don’t get to choose those. You don’t get to choose whether or not you get Land’s Stride, you will get it. It isn’t a Ranger “option” it is part of the Ranger design. 

And I listed some problems with the core ranger as well. 




Jester David said:


> What they *should* do is just offer a variant pet using ranger subclass. This skirts all the problems with releasing a variant ranger, as people are used to additive options. Drop an "animal lord" that fills the same niche but has slightly different flavour and variant powers. Which lets people play that kind of character, but doesn't confuse people with contradictory options or forces players to revise their character.
> Heck, they could even have two. Have a "warg" option that is more utility and lets the ranger see through the eyes of its pet, which is more of a hardy familiar. And a combat pet option, with the beast being all about kicking butt.




Your hamburgers are awful. 

There is nothing wrong with our hamburgers good sir, but if you are adamant we can provide you with some beef burgers, and make any changes you would like. 


And we are supposed to accept this as a legitimate offer to our complaint. We won’t fix the thing with the problem, we will give you something that is what it should have been the first time. 




Jester David said:


> If the response to a poor quality product is for them to release it again and make even more money… what's the incentive to get it right the first time?




Well, it seems there is no reason to even care about your quality. If you give bad quality you either argue “where do you stop fixing things” or “we can just make something else that is similar instead”


----------



## Chaosmancer (Sep 2, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> The ranger attacking from range while your companion attacks from melee is not well supported by the class. But it's also vastly different from the argument you or anyone else in this thread was making earlier. You've shifted from, "I want a beast that is effective in combat" to "I want my Ranger to be an archer, nice and safe from harm away from the battlefield, while I want my beast companion to mix it up on the front line in melee, and be as effective as I would be in melee".




My position hasn’t changed, because I never assumed we were removing options from the Ranger when we said “hey this part of the ranger needs to be made better”

If I had known that asking for the beast to be improved meant that I had to specify I also didn’t want to reduce any more of the ranger’s options, then I would have said so, but then why would I have assumed that was going to be your counter-argument. 




Mistwell said:


> That will satisfy some, and not others. But now that we've reduced down to a much more specific an less typical strategy preference, I think it's not a very compelling argument. You want to have a combat companion instead of a scouting and helping one, you can. You just can't be an archer while doing it.  If that is a big deal for you, don't choose this subclass. But it's not a strong argument to justify alone altering the entire base class.




So, to translate. Under your rules, if you want the companion to do what it was designed to do, you can’t be an archer. If you want to be an archer, you can’t have an effective animal companion. 



Mistwell said:


> Implied but not specified. So it's room to clarify it to provide more protection to animal companions.




True enough.


I also love how we are completely ignoring the conversation about whether or not companions are melee anymore. Instead we’ve shifted to accusing me of shifting goalposts.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 2, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> My position hasn’t changed, because I never assumed we were removing options from the Ranger when we said “hey this part of the ranger needs to be made better”
> 
> If I had known that asking for the beast to be improved meant that I had to specify I also didn’t want to reduce any more of the ranger’s options, then I would have said so, but then why would I have assumed that was going to be your counter-argument.
> 
> ...




Nope, none of these are "my rules". And nope, you absolutely can have an effective animal companion as an archer - you just can't have a melee fighting animal companion. You keep claiming it's "designed" to be a melee combatant. I've disagreed with you before on that, so have others, and you've made no compelling argument that is the design intent. It's designed to be able to do a number of things. It's capable of being a melee combatant, but only if you fight alongside it like the description says. You want to do something different with it and I disagree that what you want is what it was "designed" for.




> True enough. I also love how we are completely ignoring the conversation about whether or not companions are melee anymore. Instead we’ve shifted to accusing me of shifting goalposts.




You're making it about yourself and not the positions or arguments. You claimed your position had support from many others. To know that, we have to look at the claims others were making as well. Nobody else was insisting on also being an archer (though I suspect Eric V will try to claim his was) - it was just you. So either you had the support of others and your position was not exclusive to being an archer and shifted later to that, or you were wrong when you claimed you had widespread support. It's one or the other. Either you shifted your argument, or you made a false claim earlier. You can pick whichever one it was. But my focus is on the argument, not you.


----------



## Valetudo (Sep 2, 2018)

Sigh....Ive heard this same argument since 5th edition came out.


----------



## Eric V (Sep 2, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Nobody else was insisting on also being an archer (though I suspect Eric V will try to claim his was) - it was just you.




What the *hell *is this?  "Will try to claim?"

I'm just coming off a break because I accurately described another poster (in harsh language), so I won't speak a similar truth about you here...but this kind of statement?  Yeah, you have nothing positive to offer, that's what it's showing.

 [MENTION=6801228]Chaosmancer[/MENTION], there's nothing wrong with your logic, nor are you shifting goalposts.  I suspect if you keep this topic going, the PHB beastmaster will end up overpowered; people are just trying to "win" this discussion.

It's tough to be an archer with an animal companion.  The PHB animal companion, if you're an archer, really isn't better than a familiar.  The subclass really isn't balanced well between the two styles.  My own ranger had a wolf (wanted to try Jon Snow), and I was largely melee, though had a ranged option, obviously.  As a melee ranger who wanted to keep Hunter's Mark up, I went sword and shield.  It was reasonably good.

I was playing a Revised Ranger, however.  Even then, my character and wolf would get into trouble (no heavy armor for better AC, STR-based, so lower DEX, and no other front-line fighter to help).  It was fun having the wolf actually attack; made missing Extra Attack a non-issue.

No way this works with the PHB Ranger; squishier companion, lack of extra damage from favoured enemy, no proficiency (and later advantage) in all saving throws...yeah, I would have gone through a lot more wolves.

The Revised Ranger is powerful, but not more powerful than the PHB Paladin; Rangers being powerful is classic D&D.  I'd really suggest just using the RR, and don't hope for anything from WotC officially; there's no money it it for them.


----------



## dco (Sep 2, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> Don't disagree with any of these (part of the reason I like the Revised Ranger is they altered quite of few of those class features you listed) but, considering you are quoting my statement on melee rangers, none of this has to do with melee rangers. This is just generally ranger problems. Again, don't really disagree with a lot of what you are saying, just looking for context.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, you asked why I found the melee ranger bad, the general class features are part of the melee ranger and a great reason of why I don't like the class, lots of features wasted to make the class better in some specific circumstances.

We don't use feats and they are optional, practically on 1/3 hits hunter's mark will go down without a feat. If you use them and want damage the best feats are GWF, Polearm master and sharpshooter and other classes can have hex, the gap with other classes will be bigger. I also find a bit disgusting that you need that one spell to try to keep up with other classes, if it is so important they should have designed the class better.

1d8 is good, but beyond the second attack that's all the extra reliable damage you get till you reach level 20. At that level other classes have some good powers, monk can have two more unarmed attacks, the berserker another attack, the battlemaster has his maneuvers, the paladin can make his weapon magical with +CHA to hit, or have advantage against one enemy, etc.

At level 11 a champion will have 3 attacks which can be also used at range, more initiative, general durability, better saves, action surge, etc, that makes him far better at combat. The melee ranger will be better tracking under some circumstances, moving over some plants and camouflaging, I don't find this very interesting. A barbarian can tank and will hit more often so damage is not that different unless we go to the berserker. The warlock thanks to spells and class features can deal more damage and tank better. A monk using Ki can deal more damage or have more AC, then you have the features of each subclass.

The good thing of the hunter focused on ranged attacks is that you can use volley more reliably and it should be more difficult to lose Hunter's mark if you have space to move. That makes him good at combat but as I said I don't like the class features.



Mistwell said:


> I have, and I find nobody saying anything about the Hunter Ranger being unbalanced. You made a claim, I've tried to back up your own claim and found nothing, so where are you seeing this? If it's all over this forum and Google and the UA (which it's not in that UA by the way - I just checked and it says nothing even vaguely like that as all it talks about is unpopularity and the weakness of some powers, not an unbalanced nature of the class or that subclass in particular) then it should be pretty easy go link to ... but it's not. WHO says the Hunter Ranger is unbalanced?



Seriously?
You only have to read the first pages of this thread. And if it was balanced what was the point all the discusions and people talking about tweaks?, they want to make the class unbalanced?
From the UA:


> Many players want to play rangers, but few were happy with the class, which held its place at the bottom of class power rankings by a significant margin. The class’s individual features also filled the top-ten list of lowest-rated individual character features.



Do I need to explain what means balance?


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 2, 2018)

dco said:


> Seriously?
> You only have to read the first pages of this thread. And if it was balanced what was the point all the discusions and people talking about tweaks?, they want to make the class unbalanced?
> From the UA:
> 
> Do I need to explain what means balance?




Weak relative to other classes is not the same as unbalanced. SOMETHING will be the weakest compared to the other classes by definition. It could be perfectly balanced and still rank lowest, because something must rank lowest when you do a ranking. So yes, there is no evidence anything is unbalanced.

People want it to do more in a certain aspect of the game, hence suggesting some additions. That's also not the same as people claiming it's not balanced.


----------



## dco (Sep 2, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Weak relative to other classes is not the same as unbalanced. SOMETHING will be the weakest compared to the other classes by definition. It could be perfectly balanced and still rank lowest, because something must rank lowest when you do a ranking. So yes, there is no evidence anything is unbalanced.
> 
> People want it to do more in a certain aspect of the game, hence suggesting some additions. That's also not the same as people claiming it's not balanced.



I can play the same game, the number of people playing a class doesn't mean it's balanced, someone not having trouble doesn't mean it is balanced, people saying it is balanced doesn't mean it is balanced.
There is no evidence of it being balanced, as you are so eager to ask for evidence why don't you offer some evidence?


----------



## SkidAce (Sep 2, 2018)

I still say, add the beast companion rules from the REVISED into the PHB ranger, replacing them, and you are good to go.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 2, 2018)

dco said:


> I can play the same game, the number of people playing a class doesn't mean it's balanced, someone not having trouble doesn't mean it is balanced, people saying it is balanced doesn't mean it is balanced.
> There is no evidence of it being balanced, as you are so eager to ask for evidence why don't you offer some evidence?




That is not how it works. You need to show that something needs an overhaul. It is wasted time to prove that something has to stay as is. The work hypothesis should be everything is ok if it does not interrupt the game. Otherwise you don't get anywhere.
Look at 4e. The constant revision because some people abused rules that worked in 99 percent of all cases and only broke if you interpreted rules in a very twisted way.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 2, 2018)

dco said:


> I can play the same game, the number of people playing a class doesn't mean it's balanced, someone not having trouble doesn't mean it is balanced, people saying it is balanced doesn't mean it is balanced.
> There is no evidence of it being balanced, as you are so eager to ask for evidence why don't you offer some evidence?




Yes there is. They did a lengthy extensive playtest to measure balance, tested it internally, then with a smaller paid consultant group of third party objective creators from a wide array of experience, then with with many surveys both to a smaller professional group of playtesters, then to a much larger audience in the largest public playtest of any RPG ever, and got as much data as any company has ever gotten to measure balance perspectives on the class. It came out balanced. 

Once you get that, the burden is on those claiming it's not balanced to provide any evidence that is the case. We've seen none. We're 5 years in, the class is no longer ranking at the bottom for popularity like it used to, and complaints about it have decreased rather than increased, and people are asserting some balance issues and acting like that needs no support other than just asserting it? Nope. You have issues with the class, I get that. But you want to claim a balance issue with the class after this long? You will need a lot more than just making that claim.


----------



## Asgorath (Sep 2, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> Two points on this.
> 
> 1) How intelligent is an Intelligent creature? A flying snake has an intelligence of 2, while the stupidest mindless undead creature (the zombie) has an intelligence of 3, higher than the animal. In fact, most animals after a quick skimming, have an intelligence of 2 or 3. So, if we need to bring intelligence per the rules into this, that actually hurts both of our cases.
> 
> ...




Right, we'll just have to wait and see what the errata says, but Jeremy Crawford has indicated that they were able to fix a number of issues with the class/subclass via the errata process and that seems to be the most logical change they could make.  Personally, I have never wanted to play a Beast Master, and am very happy with my current Wood Elf Gloom Stalker with Sharpshooter.  I feel perfectly content with my damage output during combat, and am more than able to participate in the non-combat portions of our game.  Thus, I'm not particularly interested in whatever fix for the Beast Master they come up with, and am likely to not be disappointed as a result (either way).

Would I like the Revised Ranger's Favored Enemy?  Sure.  Would I like getting a bonus action Hide at a lower level?  Sure.  However, there's more to the game than combat and as I said, I'm doing more than enough damage in our group anyway.


----------



## Pauln6 (Sep 2, 2018)

Traditionally,  1 intelligence was attributed to purely instinctive creatures like insects,  2 most animals, 3 to more intelligent animals like dogs, monkeys, and crows,  and 4 to the most intelligent animals like great apes and whales, if that helps.

We are all aware of examples of trained animals in real life.  Rangers can just take that to a new level.   It makes complete sense that the  beast acts in its own defence if attacked (even if that is just dodging or withdrawing),  or that continues to follow the ranger's last instructions until it no longer makes sense for it to do so.  This might include being bloodied or the death of the target.  At that point the ranger has to use their action to strengthen the Beast's resolve or change targets.   An overly mechanical approach seems silly.  

A beast takes no actions unless the ranger uses their own action to command them.  Once commanded,  they continue to act until it is no longer appropriate to do so.  Seems a simple fix even if it's a small one.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Sep 3, 2018)

Pauln6 said:


> Traditionally,  1 intelligence was attributed to purely instinctive creatures like insects,  2 most animals, 3 to more intelligent animals like dogs, monkeys, and crows,  and 4 to the most intelligent animals like great apes and whales, if that helps.
> 
> We are all aware of examples of trained animals in real life.  Rangers can just take that to a new level.   It makes complete sense that the  beast acts in its own defence if attacked (even if that is just dodging or withdrawing),  or that continues to follow the ranger's last instructions until it no longer makes sense for it to do so.  This might include being bloodied or the death of the target.  At that point the ranger has to use their action to strengthen the Beast's resolve or change targets.   An overly mechanical approach seems silly.
> 
> A beast takes no actions unless the ranger uses their own action to command them.  Once commanded,  they continue to act until it is no longer appropriate to do so.  Seems a simple fix even if it's a small one.





Seems simple, but causes a host of problems with the current RAW, and doesn't address the bigger disconnect. 

You mention examples of trained animals? Picture a K-9 unit, perp starts running and cops order their dog to chase and take down the perp. How do they do it? A single word or a whistle, both of which fall under 5e's rules for "non-actions" in combat. Even if it is as much as a sentence, still a non-action. 

So, if Ranger's "Take it to the next level" why does it take a full six second action of doing something (miming it for them?) to command the beast when a well-trained guard dog responds with a single word? 


And the traditional listing of intelligence doesn't seem terrible useful in 5e. We've got Snakes and frogs at 1, both of which I would say are more that "purely instinctive" since both are hunters. Octopuses and whales are sitting at 3 despite being incredibly intelligent, and Apes have an intelligence of 6.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Sep 3, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> That is not how it works. You need to show that something needs an overhaul. It is wasted time to prove that something has to stay as is. The work hypothesis should be everything is ok if it does not interrupt the game. Otherwise you don't get anywhere.




I agree with this, however, don't you think we've shown plenty of evidence (at the very least) that the RAW Beastmaster needs to be overhauled? We've done a lot of arguing towards that point, but most of the rebuttals have been "no it's fine" or "fixes" which will constrain the Ranger's choices and builds even further if they wish to actually be effective, which I feel are not good fixes.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Sep 3, 2018)

Asgorath said:


> Personally, I have never wanted to play a Beast Master, and am very happy with my current Wood Elf Gloom Stalker with Sharpshooter.  I feel perfectly content with my damage output during combat, and am more than able to participate in the non-combat portions of our game.  Thus, I'm not particularly interesting in whatever fix for the Beast Master they come up with, and am likely to not be disappointed as a result (either way).




Dirty little secret? 

I don't have a lot of interest in playing a Beastmaster either. I'm not into pet mechanics or pet stories as a player. I've been having a lot more fun playing clerics, paladins (Everyone in this online group was saying it was pointless to take a paladin higher than 6th level, so I wanted to solo level a paladin), fighters and barbarians. 

But, I'm the GM for another group of people, and they love Pet stories and Pet Mechanics. So, I want to make sure I have the best possible class for them to enjoy, so these fixes are important for me to pay attention to.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Sep 3, 2018)

dco said:


> Well, you asked why I found the melee ranger bad, the general class features are part of the melee ranger and a great reason of why I don't like the class, lots of features wasted to make the class better in some specific circumstances.
> 
> We don't use feats and they are optional, practically on 1/3 hits hunter's mark will go down without a feat. If you use them and want damage the best feats are GWF, Polearm master and sharpshooter and other classes can have hex, the gap with other classes will be bigger. I also find a bit disgusting that you need that one spell to try to keep up with other classes, if it is so important they should have designed the class better.
> 
> ...





Fair points all around. I just would have assumed by the statement “melee rangers are bad” you would have had better things to say about Ranged Rangers, instead of meaning that the entire class has problems do to some weak abilities. 

Which, I don’t disagree with. I’ve found through old math I did a few years ago that Rangers are definitely built more around spreading damage around than they are single targets (Conjure Barrage and Conjure Volley are huge areas, as an example) which is somewhat against the grain of DnD “best practices” which prefers to focus damage on single targets. But, I like the imagery so the more limited damage output of Hunter Rangers doesn’t bother me too much. I do want better abilities from their 1st level stuff and from Primeval awareness of course, but I feel that is a separate issue from their damage output.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Sep 3, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Nope, none of these are "my rules". And nope, you absolutely can have an effective animal companion as an archer - you just can't have a melee fighting animal companion. You keep claiming it's "designed" to be a melee combatant. I've disagreed with you before on that, so have others, and you've made no compelling argument that is the design intent. It's designed to be able to do a number of things. It's capable of being a melee combatant, but only if you fight alongside it like the description says. You want to do something different with it and I disagree that what you want is what it was "designed" for.




I’m sorry, if this is a joke it isn’t funny. 

Way back in the thread, around post #249 it seems, I had a discussion with [MENTION=6796241]OB1[/MENTION] about how the Beast Companion for the Beastmaster ranger is clearly a combat option. Every ability they get in the Beast Master subclass is geared towards combat being a big indicator. 

Even if you want to argue it is not meant as a combat ability, you have to accept that Find Familiar provides every possible utility option outside of combat that the companion does, and does so better since some of those abilities, such as seeing out of the companion’s eyes, cost the Beastmaster Ranger a spell, while the familiar just does it innately. 

In fact, if you consider that the Familiar can, at level 1, use what is essentially a non-action for their master (because the familiar has their own turn) to provide the Help action, it is even more powerful in that respect than your lauded use of the level 7 ability of the Beastmaster to get the Help action via use of a bonus action. 

So, the Beast is clearly meant for combat purposes, because if combat was secondary to their design, they would be outshone in their primary purpose by a level 1 ritual spell, and that is even more egregious than our current situation. But, you want me to provide more examples I’ll assume, because I can’t just make statements without examples to back it up. 

Want your companion to scout ahead? It can be sent ahead to scout, but you will have no idea what it is that the companion finds unless you cast beast sense or Speak with Animals, and Speak with Animals only works if the beast returns to you, and relies on a creature with a potential intelligence of 1 to relay useful information. (Familiar can scout ahead, and you can see through it’s eyes for no cost) 

Perhaps you want a mount? A viable option for Halflings and Gnomes, but only halflings and gnomes, so it is a poor thing to balance an entire class around (ah kobolds and goblins as well, but we are trying to remain within the PHB, since that was when the class was written). And that is the purview of the Paladin’s Find Steed spell, which is again superior in what it was designed to do, since it gives you a telepathic link, spell sharing, increases the mount’s intelligence (giving more options since there are two types of mount rules) and doesn’t take up your turns or actions. And paladin’s get this at level 5, only two levels after the Beastmaster. 

Perhaps the companion will sneak somewhere and grab a small item? Possible, though again, commands will have to be very specific, and you will need a specific companion for that, since most companion options are far too large or do not have special movement types for that to be useful. Find Familiar can do the same thing. And actually, Find Familiar does it even one better, since a familiar’s form can be changed by casting the ritual again, while an animal companion static and unadaptable. 

Grabbing an item and running away? Possible, but again, something a Familiar can do just as well. Better in fact, since it won’t take the master’s actions or bonus actions to accomplish in combat. 


So, we are left with combat, where all of the subclass abilities tie back to. Where you have still been unable to tell me what a companion is supposed to do before 7th level. After all, you various suggestions of “stand and dodge, become an obstacle for the enemy” or “take the help action to give allies advantage” require the companion be capable of doing those as a bonus action for them to be worthwhile. Having the ranger use their turn to give an enemy disadvantage to hit a beast that isn’t attacking but might be a body block towards the wizard…. that is highly poor tactical play. 

So, they will likely be used in combat, to attack. Why attack? Because it is the most efficient use of the Ranger’s action and because most combats don’t get resolved unless the enemy is defeated. Beasts have almost zero options for defeating an enemy via paralyzation or incapacitation via spells or effects, so they will be dealing damage. And barring one or two companions with Reach (which is a melee option anyways) and one or two companions with flyby attack (which is also a melee option) they will provide that damage by getting adjacent to an enemy and attacking them. Melee combat, or specialized melee combat via the few companions with different types of skills. 


And so… since I have stated all of this before, and repeatedly, how have I not shown that the design of the Beastmaster Animal Companion was made with the idea that the Beast would be a melee combatant? I mean, why else would special mention have been made of increasing the companions AC and HP, their attack rolls and damage? What purpose would there have been in the level 11 ability to have the companion attack twice? At level 3, when you get the companion and the class features that come with it, what other things are you supposed to do with your companion other than attack? Dash? A useful combat action for getting somewhere but that getting somewhere is only useful if you do something afterwards. Dodge? It would be a rare day when I saw a character be fully useful for multiple levels of play by only taking the dodge action, and the few uses of that strategy could be done equally as well or better by the ranger themselves. Help? This is the True Strike cantrip, an ability that has been rated poorly fairly universally, since losing a potential attack for a better chance of hitting with a different attack is only worthwhile if the boosted attack is far more devastating than the first. A beastmaster can hit accurately for 1d8+1d6+dex mod with the usage of a single spell, or make two attacks via dual-weilding. It may be worthwhile to spend an entire turn to gain advantage, but it is a very specific set-up and not a commonly held tactic. Disengage? Only useful for running from the enemy, or running through the enemy, and again, getting somewhere is only useful if you do something once you get there. 

Attack. Attack is the only generally viable option. It is the only option that could conceivable be worth taking in most fights for four levels of play. It doesn’t require any special circumstances, any special party compositions. Even your best arguments against my claims that beasts are melee combatants require the beast to be attacking, until the Ranger is level 7. 


If all this is not enough, if all of this still amounts to me not “making a compelling argument” then you must have some amazing insight that I am lacking, some key to this whole puzzle that you aren’t sharing. 




Mistwell said:


> You're making it about yourself and not the positions or arguments. You claimed your position had support from many others. To know that, we have to look at the claims others were making as well. Nobody else was insisting on also being an archer (though I suspect Eric V will try to claim his was) - it was just you. So either you had the support of others and your position was not exclusive to being an archer and shifted later to that, or you were wrong when you claimed you had widespread support. It's one or the other. Either you shifted your argument, or you made a false claim earlier. You can pick whichever one it was. But my focus is on the argument, not you.




Why should I have had to specify something we weren’t talking about before we were talking about it? 

If we were discussing increasing the number of rituals that druids get so that their ritual caster feature felt more prominent, should I also state that I do not want them to lose all of their evocation spells in trade? Why should I make the assumption that that is where the other side will press? Until very recently you never said that your rules (because this archer discussion came about as a critique of your fighting style suggestion) were working under the assumption that the ranger could not be a ranged combatant.

And I have no problem with the Ranger being melee if that is what the player wants. My problem comes with locking out their options, because fixing the beastmaster should not come with reducing the ranger’s choices. And I feel like if your “fix” for the Ranger subclass is to reduce their potential options to your vision of what should be allowed, then it is probably not a very good fix. 

But you want to reduce all of this to a binary choice. Either I was wrong or I was lying. Either the Ranger is a Beastmaster or the Ranger is using a bow. Nevermind those have nothing to do with my critique of your fighting style, nevermind that they have nothing to do with the strength of the companion. You want to reduce this argument until I have no ground left to stand upon. 

Ah, but your focus is not on me right? You haven’t accused me of shifting goalposts, you haven’t accused me of not reading posts, you haven’t accused me of being a power gamer. You’ve only addressed my arguments. Except for the ones you’ve ignored (still waiting for any actually ranged beasts, 30 ft or further). 

Honestly, I am getting incredibly frustrated by constantly defending myself to you, when you refuse to address my points or even acknowledge that I have been making arguments. 




Mistwell said:


> Yes there is. They did a lengthy extensive playtest to measure balance, tested it internally, then with a smaller paid consultant group of third party objective creators from a wide array of experience, then with with many surveys both to a smaller professional group of playtesters, then to a much larger audience in the largest public playtest of any RPG ever, and got as much data as any company has ever gotten to measure balance perspectives on the class. It came out balanced.




And was followed two years later by the company releasing a document which said, among other things, “you’ve seen us try a number of new approaches to the ranger, all aimed at addressing the class’s high levels of player dissatisfaction and its ranking as D&D’s weakest class by a significant margin” and “The planning phase goes back to our review of playtest feedback. We review data and read anecdotes on Reddit, forums, and social media.” and of course “The class’s individual features also filled the top-ten list of lowest-rated individual character features”

This coming from the company, who by the second quote, clearly did more research, more surveys, and probably got more reports from that company they hired. All showing that the Ranger needed work. 



Mistwell said:


> Once you get that, the burden is on those claiming it's not balanced to provide any evidence that is the case. We've seen none. We're 5 years in, *the class is no longer ranking at the bottom for popularity like it used to, and complaints about it have decreased rather than increased,* and people are asserting some balance issues and acting like that needs no support other than just asserting it? Nope. You have issues with the class, I get that. But you want to claim a balance issue with the class after this long? You will need a lot more than just making that claim.




And according to WoTC that is mostly due to a larger increase in the player base of millions of new players, and the release of different subclasses which work better than the PHB subclasses. 

None of which means that the original complaints and the original data was wrong, and considering they never fixed the problem, does not mean that the class does not need an overhaul. 

We aren’t making these calls of balance issues out of the blue. I was making calls on balance issues with the Beastmaster back in 2015. The Ranger and the Sorcerer have been my two biggest class complaints since 5e came out. The only reason I’m back to arguing it now, instead of a year ago, was that I was under the assumption that the Revised Ranger was still being worked on, that they were still pursuing the fix they said they were pursuing two years ago. Why complain about balance issues when all I’d really be complaining about is how slow they are working? 

But now they’ve gone and killed the project, and JC decided to insult those of us who’ve been talking about the Ranger’s issues this entire time. So, I’m back to the arguments, retreading the same ground over and over again, and doing my best to present the evidence again and again. Which is far more than simply “making a claim” since I am backing up my assertions.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 3, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> I’m sorry, if this is a joke it isn’t funny...If all this is not enough, if all of this still amounts to me not “making a compelling argument” then you must have some amazing insight that I am lacking, some key to this whole puzzle that you aren’t sharing...Honestly, I am getting incredibly frustrated by constantly defending myself to you, when you refuse to address my points or even acknowledge that I have been making arguments.




Yeah, I can tell, because you've gotten to the point of making this discussion personal. Which is where I end my part of it.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 3, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> I agree with this, however, don't you think we've shown plenty of evidence (at the very least) that the RAW Beastmaster needs to be overhauled? We've done a lot of arguing towards that point, but most of the rebuttals have been "no it's fine" or "fixes" which will constrain the Ranger's choices and builds even further if they wish to actually be effective, which I feel are not good fixes.




I do think that the beastmaster ranger needs a few fixes.
I also think that minor fixes are sufficient.
Beast should continue with its assigned task until it gets a new one.
Beasts should also get hitdice in addition to hitpoints.
Deathsaves of course.

Maybe a bit more but that already helps a lot.


----------



## Asgorath (Sep 3, 2018)

dco said:


> We don't use feats and they are optional, practically on 1/3 hits hunter's mark will go down without a feat. If you use them and want damage the best feats are GWF, Polearm master and sharpshooter and other classes can have hex, the gap with other classes will be bigger. I also find a bit disgusting that you need that one spell to try to keep up with other classes, if it is so important they should have designed the class better.
> 
> 1d8 is good, but beyond the second attack that's all the extra reliable damage you get till you reach level 20. At that level other classes have some good powers, monk can have two more unarmed attacks, the berserker another attack, the battlemaster has his maneuvers, the paladin can make his weapon magical with +CHA to hit, or have advantage against one enemy, etc.
> 
> ...




Hex is okay, but it's disgusting that Rangers have to use Hunter's Mark to be competitive?  I don't follow.  I've never heard Monks classified as the top-tier damage dealers, but sure, everyone knows that Barbarians, Fighters and Paladins do the most single-target damage.  They generally also have to be in melee to do that damage, so good luck against a flying dragon or some other creature smart enough to not engage your melee combatants.

The Gloom Stalker's has a nice level 11 ability, it lets you take a 3rd attack if one of your two regular attacks misses.  Is that as good as a straight 3rd attack every turn?  Nobody else but the Fighter gets that, so this seems pretty powerful.

Vanish gives you a bonus action to Hide every round, which gives advantage on one attack per turn for free (unlike the Vengeance Paladin's ability, which is once per short rest).  Is that as good as Reckless Attack?  Not sure about you, but I'd rather be shooting my bow from as far away as possible than being in melee.

From my perspective, there's more to the game than just combat and characters that are highly optimized for combat only often struggle to be relevant in the other parts of the game.  My party doesn't have a Barbarian, Fighter or Paladin and as a result my Gloom Stalker is easily the highest damage dealer on average thanks to Sharpshooter.  We had a fight recently where I could stand about 300 feet back, and thanks to the fact the enemy had a light source, I had advantage on every single attack and was putting out 40+ damage per turn at level 7.  The Ranger does not feel weak in combat to me.  Does the Beast Master need some help?  Undoubtedly.  I also don't really care that a Barbarian, Fighter or Paladin with GWM could out-damage me.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Sep 3, 2018)

Asgorath said:


> I've never heard Monks classified as the top-tier damage dealers




I don't know if they've ever been ranked at top tier, but for a single ki (which recovers on a short rest) they can make 4 attacks at level 5. 2d8+2d6+(dex mod x 4) is fairly signifigant, and Open hand gets to knock prone or get rid of reactions when they do it. 

IF it follows after a stunning strike, that means multiple critical hits in a row. I can see someone ranking Monk's high on the damage tiers with all that.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Sep 3, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I do think that the beastmaster ranger needs a few fixes.
> I also think that minor fixes are sufficient.
> Beast should continue with its assigned task until it gets a new one.
> Beasts should also get hitdice in addition to hitpoints.
> ...





I agree those will help quite a bit, I’d maybe increase the hp to 5 per level if we are doing just minor fixes. 

But, I don’t think it should take the beastmasters action to get the beast started. Just give the beast it’s own initiative.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Sep 3, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Yeah, I can tell, because you've gotten to the point of making this discussion personal. Which is where I end my part of it.




Then this will be my last reply to you, which I only make because otherwise I will feel like I am agreeing with your assessment. 

I never accused you of not reading my posts. 
I never accused you of lying, or switching your argument. 
I never attacked your integrity. 

I never did anything accept address the weakpoints in your arguments and your changes to the rules. 

You are the one who made the most personal jabs during this discussion. So, if you feel like you've accomplished what you wanted to accomplish in this discussion, then I bid you adieu, and hopefully without any hard feelings.


----------



## dco (Sep 3, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> That is not how it works. You need to show that something needs an overhaul. It is wasted time to prove that something has to stay as is. The work hypothesis should be everything is ok if it does not interrupt the game. Otherwise you don't get anywhere.
> Look at 4e. The constant revision because some people abused rules that worked in 99 percent of all cases and only broke if you interpreted rules in a very twisted way.



Not sure about the relationship of all that with thinking if something is balanced or not.



Mistwell said:


> Yes there is. They did a lengthy extensive playtest to measure balance, tested it internally, then with a smaller paid consultant group of third party objective creators from a wide array of experience, then with with many surveys both to a smaller professional group of playtesters, then to a much larger audience in the largest public playtest of any RPG ever, and got as much data as any company has ever gotten to measure balance perspectives on the class. It came out balanced.
> 
> Once you get that, the burden is on those claiming it's not balanced to provide any evidence that is the case. We've seen none. We're 5 years in, the class is no longer ranking at the bottom for popularity like it used to, and complaints about it have decreased rather than increased, and people are asserting some balance issues and acting like that needs no support other than just asserting it? Nope. You have issues with the class, I get that. But you want to claim a balance issue with the class after this long? You will need a lot more than just making that claim.



And with all that data they released the revised UA ranger and they said what they said.
Popularity doesn't mean balance.
I claim what I want, that's all, I don't need anymore we can simply agree or disagree, didn't try to convince you but I needed to correct the fallacies about the need of playing experience, popularity, no one thinking is is unbalanced, etc.



Chaosmancer said:


> Fair points all around. I just would have assumed by the statement “melee rangers are bad” you would have had better things to say about Ranged Rangers, instead of meaning that the entire class has problems do to some weak abilities.
> 
> Which, I don’t disagree with. I’ve found through old math I did a few years ago that Rangers are definitely built more around spreading damage around than they are single targets (Conjure Barrage and Conjure Volley are huge areas, as an example) which is somewhat against the grain of DnD “best practices” which prefers to focus damage on single targets. But, I like the imagery so the more limited damage output of Hunter Rangers doesn’t bother me too much. I do want better abilities from their 1st level stuff and from Primeval awareness of course, but I feel that is a separate issue from their damage output.



Exactly. For example I prefer to use a rogue as a ranger, at level 11 the Rogue could deal 1d8+5+6d6 damage, the ranger needs to hit 3 enemies or use a spell to be comparable. Beyond combat 1 extra skill, expertise, cunning action, reliable talent, etc, makes it a better all around ranger unless you want the spells to talk to animals and things like that.
For me the biggest problem are the lvl 11 power for hunters, the need of H. Mark to keep up, the beastmaster that doesn't work very well and the general ranger class powers which are very specific and a bit weak. In my opinion the revised ranger was a waste of time, the balance turned to the other side.



Asgorath said:


> Hex is okay, but it's disgusting that Rangers have to use Hunter's Mark to be competitive?  I don't follow.  I've never heard Monks classified as the top-tier damage dealers, but sure, everyone knows that Barbarians, Fighters and Paladins do the most single-target damage.  They generally also have to be in melee to do that damage, so good luck against a flying dragon or some other creature smart enough to not engage your melee combatants.
> 
> The Gloom Stalker's has a nice level 11 ability, it lets you take a 3rd attack if one of your two regular attacks misses.  Is that as good as a straight 3rd attack every turn?  Nobody else but the Fighter gets that, so this seems pretty powerful.
> 
> ...



All can attack at range, a melee ranger without spells compared to a monk or barbarian will only do 1d8 more to that flying dragon in the case he chose colossus slayer.
I don't know what is a gloomstalker as I never buy extra books, it looks good but doesn't change the other subclasses, in any case food for thought for homebrews and works differently than an extra attack, thanks for pointing it out, will try it substituting volley and whirlwind attack.
Hide is good but you need somewhere to hide and in combat a GM that lets you hide in front of an enemy unless you have surprise. Not our group.
The things out of combat are not very good, I can be a rogue with more skills, double proficiency on them, take a 10, hide, dash and disengage as a bonus action, don't need to specialize in melee or ranged combat, better damage unless you use hunter's mark and damage focused on one enemy which is usually better. Uncanny dodge and evasion sooner, if I go arcane trickster I have access to illusions and invisibility which are better options that spending one minute camouflaging yourself, etc.


----------



## Pauln6 (Sep 3, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> Seems simple, but causes a host of problems with the current RAW, and doesn't address the bigger disconnect.
> 
> You mention examples of trained animals? Picture a K-9 unit, perp starts running and cops order their dog to chase and take down the perp. How do they do it? A single word or a whistle, both of which fall under 5e's rules for "non-actions" in combat. Even if it is as much as a sentence, still a non-action.
> 
> ...




Oh yeah I agree that they failed to stick to the simple formula in 5e.   I don't worry about it too much.  In my head, the old scores still apply,  although given our improved understanding of animal intelligence,  I might be more inclined to stretch the range out to 5 for the smarter animals.

Some of the logic of the beastmaster is down to balance.  If level 3 is the new level one then that could be why it takes more effort to get the beast to do as it's told at lower levels.  ;-)

I do think some more feat and spell support for beastmasters would be nice too though.


----------



## Asgorath (Sep 3, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> I don't know if they've ever been ranked at top tier, but for a single ki (which recovers on a short rest) they can make 4 attacks at level 5. 2d8+2d6+(dex mod x 4) is fairly signifigant, and Open hand gets to knock prone or get rid of reactions when they do it.
> 
> IF it follows after a stunning strike, that means multiple critical hits in a row. I can see someone ranking Monk's high on the damage tiers with all that.




Or, as a Gloom Stalker with Sharpshooter fighting in the dark, you can stand far enough back that you have advantage on every single attack and get 4d8+30+(dex mod * 3) on the first round and then 2d8+20+(dex mod * 2) on all subsequent rounds.  That seems pretty solid, especially since you're invisible to all enemy attackers who are relying on darkvision to see you.


----------



## Asgorath (Sep 3, 2018)

dco said:


> All can attack at range, a melee ranger without spells compared to a monk or barbarian will only do 1d8 more to that flying dragon in the case he chose colossus slayer.
> I don't know what is a gloomstalker as I never buy extra books, it looks good but doesn't change the other subclasses, in any case food for thought for homebrews and works differently than an extra attack, thanks for pointing it out, will try it substituting volley and whirlwind attack.
> Hide is good but you need somewhere to hide and in combat a GM that lets you hide in front of an enemy unless you have surprise. Not our group.
> The things out of combat are not very good, I can be a rogue with more skills, double proficiency on them, take a 10, hide, dash and disengage as a bonus action, don't need to specialize in melee or ranged combat, better damage unless you use hunter's mark and damage focused on one enemy which is usually better. Uncanny dodge and evasion sooner, if I go arcane trickster I have access to illusions and invisibility which are better options that spending one minute camouflaging yourself, etc.




There are ranged Barbarian and Paladin builds that do top-tier damage?  I wasn't aware of that.  Melee Rangers may very well be behind the strongest of the melee classes/subclasses, but that seems to be true of all dual-wielding variants.  However, at range, Rangers seem quite solid, even if we're not considering the XGtE subclasses.  Speaking of that, if you're not prepared to use the new subclasses that WOTC have designed after the initial feedback that the Ranger might be on the weaker end of the spectrum, I don't know what to tell you.  The Gloom Stalker is pretty great, I'd probably argue it's bordering on overpowered if you're fighting in the dark all the time, but even outside of that it's extremely strong.

Hiding is actually quite easy.  Just find a place with some cover, and then bonus action Hide behind it.  Do all your fights take place on a mile-wide paved square or something?  Surely there's a corner or alcove or wall or some other obstacle that you can duck behind and get full cover, then use your bonus action to actually Hide.  I DM for a game with a Rogue who does this all the time.  Wood Elves can even take the Hide action if they are only lightly obscured by natural things such as fog or foliage etc, which means you don't even need to be behind total cover.  If your DM isn't letting you do that, then that's a problem you and your DM need to resolve.

Yes, you can build a skill monkey class to be "better" at out-of-combat things than a Ranger, my point was that they'd still be way better than a Polearm Master/GWM Vengeance Paladin who can do nothing but fight.  Same can be said for any super-optimized-for-combat character.  Will that character do well in combat?  Absolutely.  Will they be able to participate in out-of-combat activities as much?  Probably not.  As I get older and the more I play 5E, the less interested I become in treating D&D like a video game RPG and focusing on nothing but combat.  As I said, would I be happy if my Ranger had the Revised Ranger's Favoured Enemy or Vanish at level 6?  Of course.  However, I'm really enjoying the Gloom Stalker subclass and am finding myself more than able to keep up with the rest of my party during combat.


----------



## Yunru (Sep 4, 2018)

To sorta stop this derail:
Monks are top-tier _early game_ damage dealers, where Martial Arts and Flurry of Blows gives them unprecedented numbers of attacks, but as gameplay progresses they drift more towards controlling the board with judicious use of Stunning Strike.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Sep 4, 2018)

Asgorath said:


> Or, as a Gloom Stalker with Sharpshooter fighting in the dark, you can stand far enough back that you have advantage on every single attack and get 4d8+30+(dex mod * 3) on the first round and then 2d8+20+(dex mod * 2) on all subsequent rounds.  That seems pretty solid, especially since you're invisible to all enemy attackers who are relying on darkvision to see you.




Yeah, but that only works in the dark, if all the lightsource is far enough away from you. 

In a brightly lit room, or even a place with simply dim lighting you don't get the advantage and you aren't invisible. 

Not saying Gloomstalker isn't tons of fun, but when you rely on the environment to be in your favor you have to also look at the other side. A Hunter with Sharpshooter in daylight can get 3d8+20+(dex mod * 2) on every turn after all, and that's still solid, even if in the Gloomstalker's preferred setting they can outperform the Hunter.


----------



## Asgorath (Sep 4, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> Yeah, but that only works in the dark, if all the lightsource is far enough away from you.
> 
> In a brightly lit room, or even a place with simply dim lighting you don't get the advantage and you aren't invisible.
> 
> Not saying Gloomstalker isn't tons of fun, but when you rely on the environment to be in your favor you have to also look at the other side. A Hunter with Sharpshooter in daylight can get 3d8+20+(dex mod * 2) on every turn after all, and that's still solid, even if in the Gloomstalker's preferred setting they can outperform the Hunter.




So we agree that both the Hunter and Gloom Stalker are fine, then?  I’ve always thought it reasonable that melee classes like the Barbarian, Paladin and some Fighters will out-damage ranged classes like Rangers, because there’s a large opportunity cost to fighting in melee.  Similarly, there will be fights where they simply cannot contribute, such as a flying opponent.

I guess at the end of the day, I don’t need my character to be the mathematically optimized highest DPR spec in the game to enjoy playing it.  The Beast Master could definitely use some attention, but I don’t think there are major issues with the class in general to the point where they need to toss the whole thing and redesign it from scratch.


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 4, 2018)

Asgorath said:


> So we agree that both the Hunter and Gloom Stalker are fine, then?  I’ve always thought it reasonable that melee classes like the Barbarian, Paladin and some Fighters will out-damage ranged classes like Rangers, because there’s a large opportunity cost to fighting in melee.  Similarly, there will be fights where they simply cannot contribute, such as a flying opponent.
> 
> I guess at the end of the day, I don’t need my character to be the mathematically optimized highest DPR spec in the game to enjoy playing it.  The Beast Master could definitely use some attention, but I don’t think there are major issues with the class in general to the point where they need to toss the whole thing and redesign it from scratch.




And if Hunter is fine then Beastmaster is fine too.

An additional 1d8 (slightly conditional) damage per turn isn't a big difference in the round.

I would rather have the beast in the battle. I'm glad the beast doesn't do an extra 1d8 damage for the Ranger too, as then why have the Hunter?


----------



## Yunru (Sep 4, 2018)

Asgorath said:


> but I don’t think there are major issues with the class in general to the point where they need to toss the whole thing and redesign it from scratch.




Honestly? Neither do I. It needs a power up to some of it's features (hello F10, you suck), but the problem there is they tried to fix the ranger by going "look at how powerful these new subclasses are!" rather than fix the original issues, so unless they also remake those subclasses, they're boxed in for what they can do to the chassis.


----------



## RATUTHOM (Sep 4, 2018)

Let us be honest.
Fighters do more damage even if they are using a ranged weapon. So a flying dragon would not be a big problem for them.
Rangers‘ damage output stopped increasing at the middle tier of the game. But that's fine. They still have a sepll progression and many of those spells are extremely useful.
Like Pass Without Trace, or Nature's Wrath.
Also, surprisingly, rangers apear to be lot better at surviving than fighters. Every subclass except for Beastmaster(which clearly needs to be refined) gains a defensive ability at level 7 and level 15.
Rangers are fine, and melee rangers are absolutely capable with spells from XGtE.


----------



## Asgorath (Sep 4, 2018)

THR4K said:


> Let us be honest.
> Fighters do more damage even if they are using a ranged weapon. So a flying dragon would not be a big problem for them.
> Rangers‘ damage output stopped increasing at the middle tier of the game. But that's fine. They still have a sepll progression and many of those spells are extremely useful.
> Like Pass Without Trace, or Nature's Wrath.
> ...




Right, that's why I said "some Fighters" because an archery Fighter will still do more damage than a Ranger.  I'm totally okay with that, of course.  If I had wanted to simply create the highest-damage archer I could, then my character would've been a Fighter.  With the right background and skill choices, you could create a very Ranger-like character that's still a Fighter, if that's what you're interested in.

However, I was able to create an interesting character that can do plenty of damage (at no point have I felt like I was under-performing), in fact a non-trivial factor in my decision to create a Ranger was to see what all the fuss was about and why everyone ranked them so poorly.  I agree with what [MENTION=6780961]Yunru[/MENTION] said above, maybe the overall chassis isn't the greatest thing ever but I'm still having a ton of fun playing the class and especially like the new XGtE subclasses.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Sep 4, 2018)

Asgorath said:


> So we agree that both the Hunter and Gloom Stalker are fine, then?  I’ve always thought it reasonable that melee classes like the Barbarian, Paladin and some Fighters will out-damage ranged classes like Rangers, because there’s a large opportunity cost to fighting in melee.  Similarly, there will be fights where they simply cannot contribute, such as a flying opponent.
> 
> I guess at the end of the day, I don’t need my character to be the mathematically optimized highest DPR spec in the game to enjoy playing it.  The Beast Master could definitely use some attention, but I don’t think there are major issues with the class in general to the point where they need to toss the whole thing and redesign it from scratch.




Mostly fine, in the larger class I want to rework Primeval Awareness and Favored Terrain, rework their spellcasting to make them prepared casters, and a few other things. But damage output is fine for the Hunter and Gloomstalker. 

I would note though, just because most rangers are archers, because of how highly that synchronizes with the ranger abilities, that does not mean all rangers are. You can just as easily have a sword and board ranger with Dueling or Defender fighting styles who are going to have the same damage output as the hunter archer. They aren't iconic or thematic builds per se (I blame the weakness of the spear for that one) but they are just as possible, so being okay with rangers falling behind because they are archers isn't a... complete vision, because they could be melee as well.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Sep 5, 2018)

So apparently, Mike Mearls' Happy Fun Hour Tuesday was all about the Ranger. Did anyone watch it yet?


----------



## Jester David (Sep 5, 2018)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> So apparently, Mike Mearls' Happy Fun Hour Tuesday was all about the Ranger. Did anyone watch it yet?




Yeah, he mostly talks about the low levels of the class not hitting the combat tier very well and how the first level overly focuses on the exploration tier and Favoured Enemy, which is a ribbon. And the awkward design of asking people to make choices for powers that have limited mechanical effect. Doesn't really get into higher level stuff; it's mostly the first couple levels and mentioning people were typically happy with the hunter. 

And then he spends the second half of the show designing a city based ranger, so it works for _Dragon Heist_.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Sep 5, 2018)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> So apparently, Mike Mearls' Happy Fun Hour Tuesday was all about the Ranger. Did anyone watch it yet?




I haven't gotten into the habit of watching any of those yet. I assume they are on the Youtube channel for DnD, but I haven't actually confirmed that yet.


----------



## Asgorath (Sep 5, 2018)

They usually put them on YouTube, but here's the VOD from Twitch:

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/305917714


----------



## Chaosmancer (Sep 5, 2018)

Asgorath said:


> They usually put them on YouTube, but here's the VOD from Twitch:
> 
> https://www.twitch.tv/videos/305917714





Thanks, I'll try and find time to watch it on my Kindle. (My computer DESPISES twitch and I have no idea why. I can never watch a video without it freezing every ten seconds and buffering. Part of the reason I love it that so many content creators are willing to take the extra time to post on youtube which never gives me that problem. Stupid complicated technology that makes no sense)


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 6, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> Thanks, I'll try and find time to watch it on my Kindle. (My computer DESPISES twitch and I have no idea why. I can never watch a video without it freezing every ten seconds and buffering. Part of the reason I love it that so many content creators are willing to take the extra time to post on youtube which never gives me that problem. Stupid complicated technology that makes no sense)




It'll be on YouTube in a few days: try reducing the picture quality, or going audio only. 

I've only gotten through his analysis of the base Class features, and it is make it solid sense of what is frustrating about the Class to a lot of people.


----------

