If a player is using the old version of the BM Ranger while being fully aware of the optional changes in Tasha's Cauldron, would you allow them to occasionally use the new Tasha's rules for the Primal Companion and then switch back?
I'm looking for Pros and Cons of allowing and not allowing this.
I would allow them to switch from old to new, or vice versa, once. Maybe back again once if they changed their mind. But l wouldn’t allow them to switch back and forth willy nilly. They each have various pros and cons and being able to flip flop like that would be disruptive to the game and unfair to the other players.
Yes, but there would have to be a narrative justification. In any case, it is not difficult to obtain that justification. So if a player asks me to make the change, I would give them the opportunity to narratively change the feature.
What if the other players actually want the Ranger to be able to switch because they think it may be advantageous for the party?
I mean, d'uh? Free abilities are always advantageous for the party. By that logic I'd like to have resistances to all damage please, it's advantageous for the party if I survive twice as long after all lol. That's no basis for an argument at all.
I mean, I wouldn't say it's no basis at all; if the party's struggling and the Ranger is the weak link then anything to boost them is valid.
That said, I don't think flip-flopping a sub-class is the way to go; usually a new magic item for the Ranger and/or companion will do the trick. 😉
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
What if the other players actually want the Ranger to be able to switch because they think it may be advantageous for the party?
Then they're playing the wrong kind of game, methinks. One of the points of an RPG is to overcome the obstacles you face with the tools you have. A few of those tools are the class and subclass you choose. Sure, it can be really beneficial to be able to switch between subclass versions but so could being able to switch charisma and dex score depending on if you need to be sneaky or if you need to be persuasive but that goes against the whole point of having to choose now, isn't it?
That said, if the player was really unhappy with being stuck with the PHB version of the beastmaster I'd let them try out Tasha's version for a session or two to see if that is more to their taste. If they think beastmaster ranger suck all together I'd ask them if they would like to switch to a completely new character and then find a way to write the ranger out of the story and introduce a new character.
I went through three versions of Ranger (PHB, UA Revised, Tasha's) before settling on the Tasha's rules. They should not be just switching back and forth constantly, but I would absolutely support play testing both a little and then figuring out which works best for the player.
I would allow them to switch from old to new, or vice versa, once. Maybe back again once if they changed their mind. But l wouldn’t allow them to switch back and forth willy nilly. They each have various pros and cons and being able to flip flop like that would be disruptive to the game and unfair to the other players.
^^ This
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Wotc originally had tasha's beasts written as statblocks phb ranger could use. Besides a complex stat block, it seems it was problematic.
I think understanding why the player wants this is the Key. I believe there are simple things that were intended design for phb to fix most issues. A simple item like periapt of wound closure for the pet makes alot of people stick to phb ranger. Or allowing pet dismissing and re-bonding(only because pet death loophole is so offensive to some people's idea of 5e)
For the record, do not agree with switching more than once each.
Why are you not allowing everyone to switch at the same time?
Does not seem fare to the rest of the players.
I would just go with a magic Item to help them out or figure out why they are the weak link and teach them to play to their strengths better. It none of that works then I would go with the new stuff but not until they have tried everything else.
Haravikk, Just replying to say, in spite of the memes and hot takes the ranger is never the weakest link. Even phb ones.
I'm not talking about the class itself but the character; people don't always create optimal builds, and in a casual campaign that's fine, but in a more difficult one if everybody else is optimised they may struggle. Song_of_Blues didn't really go into why exactly the player/group wants this.
A combat oriented Ranger can be fantastic, but we don't know what we're dealing with here exactly. 😝
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Sorry I wasn't clear. I agree The op didn't suggest it was a weakness issue and I was trying to nod to that fact. IMO, it's a lot harder to build a bad ranger than almost any other class (Even In optimization groups). It is possible to have a bad ranger but you have to be stubborn or really careless in your build choices.
My comment was intended to be good natured "straight man" humor. It was a "smiling boast" if that makes sense. Especially since,if i remember right, song of blues has a history of trying to treat phb ranger's abilities fairly. So I didn't think changing was a power motivation but rather a boredom or minor reason.
If a player is using the old version of the BM Ranger while being fully aware of the optional changes in Tasha's Cauldron, would you allow them to occasionally use the new Tasha's rules for the Primal Companion and then switch back?
I'm looking for Pros and Cons of allowing and not allowing this.
I would allow them to switch from old to new, or vice versa, once. Maybe back again once if they changed their mind. But l wouldn’t allow them to switch back and forth willy nilly. They each have various pros and cons and being able to flip flop like that would be disruptive to the game and unfair to the other players.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
What if the other players actually want the Ranger to be able to switch because they think it may be advantageous for the party?
I’d still make ‘em pick one or the other after trying them both. But you do you.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yes, but there would have to be a narrative justification. In any case, it is not difficult to obtain that justification. So if a player asks me to make the change, I would give them the opportunity to narratively change the feature.
I mean, I wouldn't say it's no basis at all; if the party's struggling and the Ranger is the weak link then anything to boost them is valid.
That said, I don't think flip-flopping a sub-class is the way to go; usually a new magic item for the Ranger and/or companion will do the trick. 😉
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Then they're playing the wrong kind of game, methinks. One of the points of an RPG is to overcome the obstacles you face with the tools you have. A few of those tools are the class and subclass you choose. Sure, it can be really beneficial to be able to switch between subclass versions but so could being able to switch charisma and dex score depending on if you need to be sneaky or if you need to be persuasive but that goes against the whole point of having to choose now, isn't it?
That said, if the player was really unhappy with being stuck with the PHB version of the beastmaster I'd let them try out Tasha's version for a session or two to see if that is more to their taste. If they think beastmaster ranger suck all together I'd ask them if they would like to switch to a completely new character and then find a way to write the ranger out of the story and introduce a new character.
I went through three versions of Ranger (PHB, UA Revised, Tasha's) before settling on the Tasha's rules. They should not be just switching back and forth constantly, but I would absolutely support play testing both a little and then figuring out which works best for the player.
^^ This
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Wotc originally had tasha's beasts written as statblocks phb ranger could use. Besides a complex stat block, it seems it was problematic.
I think understanding why the player wants this is the Key. I believe there are simple things that were intended design for phb to fix most issues. A simple item like periapt of wound closure for the pet makes alot of people stick to phb ranger. Or allowing pet dismissing and re-bonding(only because pet death loophole is so offensive to some people's idea of 5e)
For the record, do not agree with switching more than once each.
Haravikk, Just replying to say, in spite of the memes and hot takes the ranger is never the weakest link. Even phb ones.
Why are you not allowing everyone to switch at the same time?
Does not seem fare to the rest of the players.
I would just go with a magic Item to help them out or figure out why they are the weak link and teach them to play to their strengths better. It none of that works then I would go with the new stuff but not until they have tried everything else.
I'm not talking about the class itself but the character; people don't always create optimal builds, and in a casual campaign that's fine, but in a more difficult one if everybody else is optimised they may struggle. Song_of_Blues didn't really go into why exactly the player/group wants this.
A combat oriented Ranger can be fantastic, but we don't know what we're dealing with here exactly. 😝
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Sorry I wasn't clear. I agree The op didn't suggest it was a weakness issue and I was trying to nod to that fact. IMO, it's a lot harder to build a bad ranger than almost any other class (Even In optimization groups). It is possible to have a bad ranger but you have to be stubborn or really careless in your build choices.
My comment was intended to be good natured "straight man" humor. It was a "smiling boast" if that makes sense. Especially since,if i remember right, song of blues has a history of trying to treat phb ranger's abilities fairly. So I didn't think changing was a power motivation but rather a boredom or minor reason.