Yes it is, but I’m going to p*SS off a few folks - ranger is the thinking man’s martial/Gish. If you just want to wade n wailing go Paladin or barbarian. Monk is its own weird thing, rogue isn’t really a martial - it doesn’t have the AC or HP. At best it’s a skilled support with a big nova hit here and there. The ranger has all the straight combat ability of the Paladin, semi situational abilities even using the PHB abilities ( if you haven’t talked to your DM before picking your terrains and foes DON’T blame the DM, YOU didn’t do your job in character creation. You don’t get a lot of spells true, but the spells you get are always useful IF you are creative in your tactics and fighting. If you are a thoughtful, creative, tactical player there is no better class than the ranger. If you aren’t, we’ll I sorry, but I can see why you might think the ranger sucks but it’s not the class that is at fault.
I agree on most,but I think even without knowing the DM before you already finished you character,you still can think of chances and average,if you pick this way,you are either unlucky or bad in choosing if you have two campaigns without using one one time.and about tactic and creativity,that is why I prefer phb above one dnd and tashas
There was a longish thread early last year in the ranger forum about terrains and favored enemies, the general consensus (at least my recollection of it) was that you really need about 5 of each not the 3 allowed in order to be well covered if randomly choosing. The best way is to talk to the DM and find out which ones to take for their campaign. I was toying with the idea of adding a homebrew feat to add to the ranger’s knowledge but then ODD came along and rendered the point moot. It would have added either 2 enemies and one terrain or one enemy and 2 terrains depending on the player’s choice.
People say that rangers are bad, but its only the beast master
a beast master that fights nexts to his animal yes,a beastmaster with bow and a bird that steals enemy swords or a wolf that sneaks up to the enmy no
There are 8 different subclasses, each has its own benefits, troubles and prime playing styles. Misplayed each can be a disaster, well played each is a hero of great rank, a lot has to do with the player and their playing style. For me I prefer to play hunters, horizonwalkers, Fey wanderers and I am warming up to swarm keepers the others are good but not my cup of tea
the hunter can make big damage every turn and the beast master can use it’s companion for other things than attack,like disarming , stealing,or scouting
the gloom stalker is strong,but the area situational to is pinned and the attack is only first phase boosted
this is weaker and not a subclass type,but wolves are good for stealth and one can be used to surprise attack an enemy and hide,and repeat while the player is safe
most subclasses not named before are based on magic,but a druid multiclass works better,also ranger never was meaned as full-caster
tashas sounds good,but it breaks down tracking and a combination of skills rarely spoken about: tactical insight,with a ranger you can create the combat equivalent of bardic knowledge.knowing what your enemy probably will do is much better than a d4 extra damage
one dnd pins back the options for hunter and makes it a full-caster
the phb ranger is simple but effective, the lore idea of the ranger.if the player has good ideas within RAW,or a little further, it has a big amount of tricks
You think PHB Ranger and PHB beast master are better than Tasha’s? You really are insane.
the hunter can make big damage every turn and the beast master can use it’s companion for other things than attack,like disarming , stealing,or scouting
the gloom stalker is strong,but the area situational to is pinned and the attack is only first phase boosted
this is weaker and not a subclass type,but wolves are good for stealth and one can be used to surprise attack an enemy and hide,and repeat while the player is safe
most subclasses not named before are based on magic,but a druid multiclass works better,also ranger never was meaned as full-caster
tashas sounds good,but it breaks down tracking and a combination of skills rarely spoken about: tactical insight,with a ranger you can create the combat equivalent of bardic knowledge.knowing what your enemy probably will do is much better than a d4 extra damage
one dnd pins back the options for hunter and makes it a full-caster
the phb ranger is simple but effective, the lore idea of the ranger.if the player has good ideas within RAW,or a little further, it has a big amount of tricks
You think PHB Ranger and PHB beast master are better than Tasha’s? You really are insane.
A phb beastmaster can harvestpoison out of combat and then apply it to ammunition,caltrops, traps etc. Allowing double damage on several turns.
If that's no good how about fog cloud +blindsight on a pet Allowing disadvantage to be attacked and advantage attacking and hinder enemy casting.
Still no good how about a passive perception of 21 with a wolf. Ambushes and enemy detection maximum so the ranger can dump wisdom and use better weapons or armor.
Tashas beastmaster cannot act without a ranger actions but a phb pet can when separated. (There also is the potential for hide being a free action but I rarely push it if complaints occur)
Tashas is cleaner to use but phb has powerful options.
the hunter can make big damage every turn and the beast master can use it’s companion for other things than attack,like disarming , stealing,or scouting
the gloom stalker is strong,but the area situational to is pinned and the attack is only first phase boosted
this is weaker and not a subclass type,but wolves are good for stealth and one can be used to surprise attack an enemy and hide,and repeat while the player is safe
most subclasses not named before are based on magic,but a druid multiclass works better,also ranger never was meaned as full-caster
tashas sounds good,but it breaks down tracking and a combination of skills rarely spoken about: tactical insight,with a ranger you can create the combat equivalent of bardic knowledge.knowing what your enemy probably will do is much better than a d4 extra damage
one dnd pins back the options for hunter and makes it a full-caster
the phb ranger is simple but effective, the lore idea of the ranger.if the player has good ideas within RAW,or a little further, it has a big amount of tricks
You think PHB Ranger and PHB beast master are better than Tasha’s? You really are insane.
A phb beastmaster can harvestpoison out of combat and then apply it to ammunition,caltrops, traps etc. Allowing double damage on several turns.
If that's no good how about fog cloud +blindsight on a pet Allowing disadvantage to be attacked and advantage attacking and hinder enemy casting.
Still no good how about a passive perception of 21 with a wolf. Ambushes and enemy detection maximum so the ranger can dump wisdom and use better weapons or armor.
Tashas beastmaster cannot act without a ranger actions but a phb pet can when separated. (There also is the potential for hide being a free action but I rarely push it if complaints occur)
Tashas is cleaner to use but phb has powerful options.
the hunter can make big damage every turn and the beast master can use it’s companion for other things than attack,like disarming , stealing,or scouting
the gloom stalker is strong,but the area situational to is pinned and the attack is only first phase boosted
this is weaker and not a subclass type,but wolves are good for stealth and one can be used to surprise attack an enemy and hide,and repeat while the player is safe
most subclasses not named before are based on magic,but a druid multiclass works better,also ranger never was meaned as full-caster
tashas sounds good,but it breaks down tracking and a combination of skills rarely spoken about: tactical insight,with a ranger you can create the combat equivalent of bardic knowledge.knowing what your enemy probably will do is much better than a d4 extra damage
one dnd pins back the options for hunter and makes it a full-caster
the phb ranger is simple but effective, the lore idea of the ranger.if the player has good ideas within RAW,or a little further, it has a big amount of tricks
You think PHB Ranger and PHB beast master are better than Tasha’s? You really are insane.
A phb beastmaster can harvestpoison out of combat and then apply it to ammunition,caltrops, traps etc. Allowing double damage on several turns.
If that's no good how about fog cloud +blindsight on a pet Allowing disadvantage to be attacked and advantage attacking and hinder enemy casting.
Still no good how about a passive perception of 21 with a wolf. Ambushes and enemy detection maximum so the ranger can dump wisdom and use better weapons or armor.
Tashas beastmaster cannot act without a ranger actions but a phb pet can when separated. (There also is the potential for hide being a free action but I rarely push it if complaints occur)
Tashas is cleaner to use but phb has powerful options.
btw do you know what the phrase action economy means?
Please don't waste more time on insults than the actual material. We may have grammar or punctuation issues but that has less to do with the validity of our logic or accuracy of our statements than you might think.
But using character assassination to "prove" a point shows your logic clearly.
Treantmonk has a wonderful phb beastmaster build available but I can't link it right now.
Your article particularly ignores the points I addressed. 1.using poison rules phb surpasses tashas action economy or other beast options unique traits allow greater use of actions. 2. Lies about functionality of economy comparisons between the two types. 3. Bias towards unfair dming.
I am glad both are an option. There are plenty of ways to optimize phb pets but tashas is easy to run and consistent.
Weighing in - Again. Because most combats only last 2-4 rounds a lot of folks are only interested in nova damage - that is why they love the gloomstalker and the Paladin. Beastmaster, like most ranger builds is not a “nova” build so some folks think it’s weak. As Roscoe has pointed out that really isn’t true it’s a very strong build, just not a nova build. It is also, like most ranger builds, a tactical build that calls for knowing your character’s abilities (and those of its beast) intimately so as to use those abilities as effectively as possible. The nature/exploration leg tools of the PHB ranger actually help the beastmaster prep for combat in ways the Tasha’s ranger really can’t. Tasha focused on giving the ranger help in combat at the expense of those exploration/nature skills. Effectively the PHB ranger has not just proficiency with nature and survival (assuming they took those skills) but for at least a limited range of environments and creatures also has expertise. In the PHB classes that made rangers the best in nature and survival. Because of their beast’s senses etc beastmaster may well have been the best of the rangers. Then along came Xanther’s and the scout rogue with an automatic expertise in nature and survival (which should have gone to the ranger but…), it’s still weaker overall than a ranger because it lacks the spell casting but it is superior to the PHB ranger in those skills because it doesn’t have the ranger’s limitations. Then Tasha’s replaced the PHB abilities with canny and favored foe - expertise in one skill (of your choice so perception has to be considered as well as nature and survival) and an extra d4 damage once a round and 2 languages. Leaving the ranger still behind the scout rogue in nature/survival skills but ahead overall because of the casting, AC and 2 attacks at L5. The ODD ranger almost brings the nature/ exploration skills back into alignment as the ranger gets 4 expertises (eventually) so they can have full expertise in nature, survival and 2 other skills (perception and ???) (the ODD scout rogue actually gets 6 expertises - the 4 from the ODD and the 2 from scout rogue but at least it’s parity in the exploration/nature leg finally). With the ODD ranger the ranger finally returns to being seen as one of the stronger classes in the game. The 4 expertises finally eliminate the concerns about terrain specialization (rangers effectively get expertise in all terrains) and favored enemies (like terrains they now effectively have expertise in all of them) (assuming they take expertise in nature and survival) .
Effectively the PHB ranger has not just proficiency with nature and survival (assuming they took those skills) but for at least a limited range of environments and creatures also has expertise.
I would say it is better than this. It completely negates certain skill checks (in specific being lost).
That can be OP in the right campaign, but it is also situational. When I was playing Tomb of Annihilation we spent the first 3 levels constantly lost, the guide we hired did little to help. I ended up multiclassing our Warlock to take a single level in Ranger (he was the only one with the multiclass requirements). That completely changed the game by eliminating those checks.
That said in every other campaign I have played having someone with Survival proficiency and a good wisdom was good enough.
In the PHB classes that made rangers the best in nature and survival. Because of their beast’s senses etc beastmaster may well have been the best of the rangers. Then along came Xanther’s and the scout rogue with an automatic expertise in nature and survival (which should have gone to the ranger but…), it’s still weaker overall than a ranger because it lacks the spell casting but it is superior to the PHB ranger in those skills because it doesn’t have the ranger’s limitations.
I would not argue they are superior because they do not get the automatic buffs that favored terrain gives.
I like the Scout Rogue and I have played one. The thing with expertise is the Tashas Ranger allows the Ranger to do that if they want instead of FT.
Then Tasha’s replaced the PHB abilities with canny and favored foe - expertise in one skill (of your choice so perception has to be considered as well as nature and survival) and an extra d4 damage once a round and 2 languages. Leaving the ranger still behind the scout rogue in nature/survival skills
I would not agree with this. First off because Nature is not that powerful and there is nothing requiring a Ranger to take the expertise in Perception. TBH most of the time I play a Ranger I am playing a Fey Wanderer and I am getting the expertise in a Charisma skill I get through a background. Further the climb speed and swim speed also come in to play a lot and the Ranger also has a ton of spells that will accomplish a lot of that. Speak with Animals and Speak with plants in particular can cover nature skills generally better than expertise in nature and Tashas Ranger gets those for free with a free cast.
Rogue is just more of an expert class than Ranger when you get down to it and Scout is an expert in the Ranger, but they are not a match for a Ranger overall - either a PHB in FT or Tasha's.
The "situational" complaint often is used to avoid actual analysis of frequency. (Note: ECMO3 I don't consider you a offender as you usually present a realistic stance in these discussions. Still I see others incoming with similar remarks)
Enough of the situational abilities allow "saved" potential to remain effective a large portion of the time or are sill able to be used via creative means.
As for scouts/expertise, They will never match the unique features of a ranger because the ranger gets exact tracking details, extra actions and travel boosts. However scouts/tasha's can't. If someone wants the scouts fantasy I have no problem with rogue. Some people want non-magic ranger and scouts gives them a playspace.
I do agree with all opinions that PHB Rangers are fine, specially Hunters. I never played and saw a PHB Beastmaster in action, so I cannot state my opinion about their performance, but it seems there some creative ways to partner with your regular beast companions.
In regards to sub-class power discussion, I believe Gloomstalkers have a slightly edge over others at level 7 thanks to their free WIS saving proficiency. At least in my tables, my DMs love save or suck effects and Hold Person is a common menace. This ability really made the difference.
People say that rangers are bad, but its only the beast master
a beast master that fights nexts to his animal yes,a beastmaster with bow and a bird that steals enemy swords or a wolf that sneaks up to the enmy no
You spend your action for that. Also, please add a space after your comma.
yes, but if you use your first turn to steal the enemy sword(s) or command your wolf, and the others to attack, the swords will stay away or the wolf will keep fighting, because it still is a npc that defends itself
People say that rangers are bad, but its only the beast master
a beast master that fights nexts to his animal yes,a beastmaster with bow and a bird that steals enemy swords or a wolf that sneaks up to the enmy no
You spend your action for that. Also, please add a space after your comma.
yes, but if you use your first turn to steal the enemy sword(s) or command your wolf, and the others to attack, the swords will stay away or the wolf will keep fighting, because it still is a npc that defends itself
This is RAI maybe, but not RAW. You have proper spacing!
People say that rangers are bad, but its only the beast master
a beast master that fights nexts to his animal yes,a beastmaster with bow and a bird that steals enemy swords or a wolf that sneaks up to the enmy no
You spend your action for that. Also, please add a space after your comma.
yes, but if you use your first turn to steal the enemy sword(s) or command your wolf, and the others to attack, the swords will stay away or the wolf will keep fighting, because it still is a npc that defends itself
This is RAI maybe, but not RAW. You have proper spacing!
While he is still obsessed over grammar, here ImagineDragons289 is correct that the way you described it is acting is misleading at best.
In order for a phb beast to act on its own the ranger must be absent or unconcious. We can infer absent directly relates to the ability to receive commands aka the beast should be out of earshot. There are also "commands" that are free actions for the phb ranger. Hide, search and anything not taken away by the rules.
Tasha's beast on the other hand must dodge unless the ranger is incapacited because all beast actions are bonus actions (the "replaced attack" being the only close exemption)
Also to be clear the phb beast is a player character not an npc. Players control its motivation not the dm. It maintains a player controlled adventure history allowing the same adventure specific growth as players (including death, training, blessings etc)
Tashas on the other hand reappears as a statblock RAW. Meaning all changes to it are reset unless specifically altered by the dm.
People say that rangers are bad, but its only the beast master
a beast master that fights nexts to his animal yes,a beastmaster with bow and a bird that steals enemy swords or a wolf that sneaks up to the enmy no
You spend your action for that. Also, please add a space after your comma.
yes, but if you use your first turn to steal the enemy sword(s) or command your wolf, and the others to attack, the swords will stay away or the wolf will keep fighting, because it still is a npc that defends itself
This is RAI maybe, but not RAW. You have proper spacing!
While he is still obsessed over grammar, here ImagineDragons289 is correct that the way you described it is acting is misleading at best.
In order for a phb beast to act on its own the ranger must be absent or unconcious. We can infer absent directly relates to the ability to receive commands aka the beast should be out of earshot. There are also "commands" that are free actions for the phb ranger. Hide, search and anything not taken away by the rules.
Tasha's beast on the other hand must dodge unless the ranger is incapacited because all beast actions are bonus actions (the "replaced attack" being the only close exemption)
Also to be clear the phb beast is a player character not an npc. Players control its motivation not the dm. It maintains a player controlled adventure history allowing the same adventure specific growth as players (including death, training, blessings etc)
Tashas on the other hand reappears as a statblock RAW. Meaning all changes to it are reset unless specifically altered by the dm.
there never is said in the phb that a pet is no npc, and a beast can always dodge or use reaction.
Frankly when I read the descriptions of the PHB beast and primal beast there is not much difference.the primal beast’s commands (especially attack) are a bonus action not an action, it gets 1 more HP/L (they do add up) and it’s AC might be slightly better (13+PB (primal) vs stat block +PB PHB). In both cases they grow with the ranger based on PB scaling. It may actually be that you can train a PHB beast with skills/feats since stays the same while it’s nuclear if the primal is the same primal spirit in 3 different forms that grows over time or if it’s a different primal spirit each time you summon it and any skills etc taught are gone when you summon the next one. Both are run by the player not the DM so they are companions not NPCS.
Let me correct my self, IF tasha's beast is re-summoned via long rest resurrections OR Via changing forms it is a new beast.
When you finish a long rest, you can summon a different primal beast. The new beast appears in an unoccupied space within 5 feet of you, and you choose its stat block and appearance. If you already have a beast from this feature, it vanishes when the new beast appears. The beast also vanishes if you die.
Meanwhile A PHB ranger Pet body physically stays in existence. (even after bonding a new one) So, Using resurrections would maintain trained skills, permanent blessings or effects (Such as the simic guild, dark gifts or powers etc). Yes there are costs involved but a regular ranger has tools to off set such costs. Each individual must chose The value of such resurrections. Still the best plan is to play smart and prevent the death all together.
PHB is a Investment pays off play concept(even base ranger not just beasmaster), Meanwhile Tasha's is designed more for quick payoffs.
Let me correct my self, IF tasha's beast is re-summoned via long rest resurrections OR Via changing forms it is a new beast.
When you finish a long rest, you can summon a different primal beast. The new beast appears in an unoccupied space within 5 feet of you, and you choose its stat block and appearance. If you already have a beast from this feature, it vanishes when the new beast appears. The beast also vanishes if you die.
Meanwhile A PHB ranger Pet body physically stays in existence. (even after bonding a new one) So, Using resurrections would maintain trained skills, permanent blessings or effects (Such as the simic guild, dark gifts or powers etc). Yes there are costs involved but a regular ranger has tools to off set such costs. Still the best plan is to play smart and prevent the death all together.
PHB is a Investment pays off play concept(even base ranger not just beasmaster), Meanwhile Tasha's is designed more for quick payoffs.
You are creating workaround strategies for the beastmaster’s weak features. You don’t need to do that with Tasha’s.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
a beast master that fights nexts to his animal yes,a beastmaster with bow and a bird that steals enemy swords or a wolf that sneaks up to the enmy no
There was a longish thread early last year in the ranger forum about terrains and favored enemies, the general consensus (at least my recollection of it) was that you really need about 5 of each not the 3 allowed in order to be well covered if randomly choosing. The best way is to talk to the DM and find out which ones to take for their campaign. I was toying with the idea of adding a homebrew feat to add to the ranger’s knowledge but then ODD came along and rendered the point moot. It would have added either 2 enemies and one terrain or one enemy and 2 terrains depending on the player’s choice.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
There are 8 different subclasses, each has its own benefits, troubles and prime playing styles. Misplayed each can be a disaster, well played each is a hero of great rank, a lot has to do with the player and their playing style. For me I prefer to play hunters, horizonwalkers, Fey wanderers and I am warming up to swarm keepers the others are good but not my cup of tea
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
You spend your action for that. Also, please add a space after your comma.
You think PHB Ranger and PHB beast master are better than Tasha’s? You really are insane.
A phb beastmaster can harvestpoison out of combat and then apply it to ammunition,caltrops, traps etc. Allowing double damage on several turns.
If that's no good how about fog cloud +blindsight on a pet Allowing disadvantage to be attacked and advantage attacking and hinder enemy casting.
Still no good how about a passive perception of 21 with a wolf. Ambushes and enemy detection maximum so the ranger can dump wisdom and use better weapons or armor.
Tashas beastmaster cannot act without a ranger actions but a phb pet can when separated. (There also is the potential for hide being a free action but I rarely push it if complaints occur)
Tashas is cleaner to use but phb has powerful options.
Are you are BetBadandBeyond related? Because you also don’t have spaces after some of your commas. Also, I believe this may make you change your mind: https://rpgbot.net/dnd5/characters/classes/ranger/subclasses#beast-master
btw do you know what the phrase action economy means?
Please don't waste more time on insults than the actual material. We may have grammar or punctuation issues but that has less to do with the validity of our logic or accuracy of our statements than you might think.
But using character assassination to "prove" a point shows your logic clearly.
Treantmonk has a wonderful phb beastmaster build available but I can't link it right now.
Your article particularly ignores the points I addressed. 1.using poison rules phb surpasses tashas action economy or other beast options unique traits allow greater use of actions. 2. Lies about functionality of economy comparisons between the two types. 3. Bias towards unfair dming.
I am glad both are an option. There are plenty of ways to optimize phb pets but tashas is easy to run and consistent.
Weighing in - Again.
Because most combats only last 2-4 rounds a lot of folks are only interested in nova damage - that is why they love the gloomstalker and the Paladin. Beastmaster, like most ranger builds is not a “nova” build so some folks think it’s weak. As Roscoe has pointed out that really isn’t true it’s a very strong build, just not a nova build. It is also, like most ranger builds, a tactical build that calls for knowing your character’s abilities (and those of its beast) intimately so as to use those abilities as effectively as possible. The nature/exploration leg tools of the PHB ranger actually help the beastmaster prep for combat in ways the Tasha’s ranger really can’t. Tasha focused on giving the ranger help in combat at the expense of those exploration/nature skills. Effectively the PHB ranger has not just proficiency with nature and survival (assuming they took those skills) but for at least a limited range of environments and creatures also has expertise. In the PHB classes that made rangers the best in nature and survival. Because of their beast’s senses etc beastmaster may well have been the best of the rangers.
Then along came Xanther’s and the scout rogue with an automatic expertise in nature and survival (which should have gone to the ranger but…), it’s still weaker overall than a ranger because it lacks the spell casting but it is superior to the PHB ranger in those skills because it doesn’t have the ranger’s limitations. Then Tasha’s replaced the PHB abilities with canny and favored foe - expertise in one skill (of your choice so perception has to be considered as well as nature and survival) and an extra d4 damage once a round and 2 languages. Leaving the ranger still behind the scout rogue in nature/survival skills but ahead overall because of the casting, AC and 2 attacks at L5. The ODD ranger almost brings the nature/ exploration skills back into alignment as the ranger gets 4 expertises (eventually) so they can have full expertise in nature, survival and 2 other skills (perception and ???) (the ODD scout rogue actually gets 6 expertises - the 4 from the ODD and the 2 from scout rogue but at least it’s parity in the exploration/nature leg finally). With the ODD ranger the ranger finally returns to being seen as one of the stronger classes in the game. The 4 expertises finally eliminate the concerns about terrain specialization (rangers effectively get expertise in all terrains) and favored enemies (like terrains they now effectively have expertise in all of them) (assuming they take expertise in nature and survival) .
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I would say it is better than this. It completely negates certain skill checks (in specific being lost).
That can be OP in the right campaign, but it is also situational. When I was playing Tomb of Annihilation we spent the first 3 levels constantly lost, the guide we hired did little to help. I ended up multiclassing our Warlock to take a single level in Ranger (he was the only one with the multiclass requirements). That completely changed the game by eliminating those checks.
That said in every other campaign I have played having someone with Survival proficiency and a good wisdom was good enough.
I would not argue they are superior because they do not get the automatic buffs that favored terrain gives.
I like the Scout Rogue and I have played one. The thing with expertise is the Tashas Ranger allows the Ranger to do that if they want instead of FT.
I would not agree with this. First off because Nature is not that powerful and there is nothing requiring a Ranger to take the expertise in Perception. TBH most of the time I play a Ranger I am playing a Fey Wanderer and I am getting the expertise in a Charisma skill I get through a background. Further the climb speed and swim speed also come in to play a lot and the Ranger also has a ton of spells that will accomplish a lot of that. Speak with Animals and Speak with plants in particular can cover nature skills generally better than expertise in nature and Tashas Ranger gets those for free with a free cast.
Rogue is just more of an expert class than Ranger when you get down to it and Scout is an expert in the Ranger, but they are not a match for a Ranger overall - either a PHB in FT or Tasha's.
I will also reiterate a common statement of mine.
The "situational" complaint often is used to avoid actual analysis of frequency. (Note: ECMO3 I don't consider you a offender as you usually present a realistic stance in these discussions. Still I see others incoming with similar remarks)
Enough of the situational abilities allow "saved" potential to remain effective a large portion of the time or are sill able to be used via creative means.
As for scouts/expertise, They will never match the unique features of a ranger because the ranger gets exact tracking details, extra actions and travel boosts. However scouts/tasha's can't. If someone wants the scouts fantasy I have no problem with rogue. Some people want non-magic ranger and scouts gives them a playspace.
This is besides the point but my name is Ivan and I have a horse named roscoe @roscoeivan
If I haven’t offended you, don’t worry. I’m sure I’ll get to you eventually.
I do agree with all opinions that PHB Rangers are fine, specially Hunters. I never played and saw a PHB Beastmaster in action, so I cannot state my opinion about their performance, but it seems there some creative ways to partner with your regular beast companions.
In regards to sub-class power discussion, I believe Gloomstalkers have a slightly edge over others at level 7 thanks to their free WIS saving proficiency. At least in my tables, my DMs love save or suck effects and Hold Person is a common menace. This ability really made the difference.
yes, but if you use your first turn to steal the enemy sword(s) or command your wolf, and the others to attack, the swords will stay away or the wolf will keep fighting, because it still is a npc that defends itself
This is RAI maybe, but not RAW. You have proper spacing!
While he is still obsessed over grammar, here ImagineDragons289 is correct that the way you described it is acting is misleading at best.
In order for a phb beast to act on its own the ranger must be absent or unconcious. We can infer absent directly relates to the ability to receive commands aka the beast should be out of earshot. There are also "commands" that are free actions for the phb ranger. Hide, search and anything not taken away by the rules.
Tasha's beast on the other hand must dodge unless the ranger is incapacited because all beast actions are bonus actions (the "replaced attack" being the only close exemption)
Also to be clear the phb beast is a player character not an npc. Players control its motivation not the dm. It maintains a player controlled adventure history allowing the same adventure specific growth as players (including death, training, blessings etc)
Tashas on the other hand reappears as a statblock RAW. Meaning all changes to it are reset unless specifically altered by the dm.
there never is said in the phb that a pet is no npc, and a beast can always dodge or use reaction.
Frankly when I read the descriptions of the PHB beast and primal beast there is not much difference.the primal beast’s commands (especially attack) are a bonus action not an action, it gets 1 more HP/L (they do add up) and it’s AC might be slightly better (13+PB (primal) vs stat block +PB PHB). In both cases they grow with the ranger based on PB scaling. It may actually be that you can train a PHB beast with skills/feats since stays the same while it’s nuclear if the primal is the same primal spirit in 3 different forms that grows over time or if it’s a different primal spirit each time you summon it and any skills etc taught are gone when you summon the next one. Both are run by the player not the DM so they are companions not NPCS.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Let me correct my self, IF tasha's beast is re-summoned via long rest resurrections OR Via changing forms it is a new beast.
Meanwhile A PHB ranger Pet body physically stays in existence. (even after bonding a new one) So, Using resurrections would maintain trained skills, permanent blessings or effects (Such as the simic guild, dark gifts or powers etc). Yes there are costs involved but a regular ranger has tools to off set such costs. Each individual must chose The value of such resurrections. Still the best plan is to play smart and prevent the death all together.
PHB is a Investment pays off play concept(even base ranger not just beasmaster), Meanwhile Tasha's is designed more for quick payoffs.
You are creating workaround strategies for the beastmaster’s weak features. You don’t need to do that with Tasha’s.