The second, if you're using Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, is to allow the companion to take levels as a warrior sidekick. They technically meet the requirements, ...
Do they really? I mean, you find the beast's stat block in the MM, but the beast companion has different stats. The Beastmaster rules also specify the beast you can choose can't have a CR higher than 1/4. Am I really the only one who thinks that's pushing the "technicalities" a bit far?
You can, indeed. The Ranger's Companion feature adds bonuses which, on paper, would affect the challenge rating. But there's no direction to recalculate their challenge rating, and the feature is wholly uninterested in the challenge rating. And since sidekicks can be any creature with a challenge rating of 1/2 or lower, a medium beast of 1/4 or lower would qualify.
There's no shortage of Tweets from Jeremy Crawford on the idea that a sidekick is primarily meant to be additive. Anyone could have one, and a ranger could even take one on in addition to a beast companion. That said, the DM's word is final.
The dmg has rules for recalculated cr. Used for adding hp or skills or damage or saving throws or pollymorph.
I would post it but I'm on a phone in the woods with poor signal du to holiday.
I'm well-aquainted with those rules. I'm saying the class feature doesn't care. And I pointed to Crawford's own words saying it's okay.
I honestly don't get the controversy here.
DMs can allow anything and everything. That isn’t much of an argument. Saying a DM “might allow” something is more of an indication that the RAW don’t than anything else.
How does the class feature not care? It literally says to choose a beast with a CR of 1/4 or lower. I don’t see what you are trying to say here.
i think what he means to say here is that becuase the feature does not say exactly how much or how little its challenge rating increases, it does not increase or decrease at all, something that is complete BS since that is not really how CR is supposed to work? And hey even if the main designer for 5e allows an combination does not mean that the combination itself will be balanced, and as per this combination in particular it probably isint seeing as to how an sidekick or companion is never meant to outshadow party members, something they absolutely can do if you are using both of these together, it will inevetably start to outshine the damage output of the other martial characters in the party during tier 2 of the game, will have the equivalent of expertise in all its skills and be pulling of tricks no other party member can do, they were not designed to go together like that, each feature was meant to be its own valid progression for an monster but with both of them together is simply too much
I’m interpreting the point as, the action economy of the beast is intertwined with the ranger now, not separate. The CR 1/4 beast is absorbed by the PC in a way. It’s part of what people hate about the subclass, how it doesn’t “add to the class”. That being said, whether crunching the CR math (defensive and offensive) or just using a third or half the total level of the ranger, how fun would it be to turn Cringer into Battlecat?!?!
please elaborate on all of this
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
The second, if you're using Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, is to allow the companion to take levels as a warrior sidekick. They technically meet the requirements, ...
Do they really? I mean, you find the beast's stat block in the MM, but the beast companion has different stats. The Beastmaster rules also specify the beast you can choose can't have a CR higher than 1/4. Am I really the only one who thinks that's pushing the "technicalities" a bit far?
You can, indeed. The Ranger's Companion feature adds bonuses which, on paper, would affect the challenge rating. But there's no direction to recalculate their challenge rating, and the feature is wholly uninterested in the challenge rating. And since sidekicks can be any creature with a challenge rating of 1/2 or lower, a medium beast of 1/4 or lower would qualify.
There's no shortage of Tweets from Jeremy Crawford on the idea that a sidekick is primarily meant to be additive. Anyone could have one, and a ranger could even take one on in addition to a beast companion. That said, the DM's word is final.
The dmg has rules for recalculated cr. Used for adding hp or skills or damage or saving throws or pollymorph.
I would post it but I'm on a phone in the woods with poor signal du to holiday.
I'm well-aquainted with those rules. I'm saying the class feature doesn't care. And I pointed to Crawford's own words saying it's okay.
I honestly don't get the controversy here.
DMs can allow anything and everything. That isn’t much of an argument. Saying a DM “might allow” something is more of an indication that the RAW don’t than anything else.
How does the class feature not care? It literally says to choose a beast with a CR of 1/4 or lower. I don’t see what you are trying to say here.
The ranger's companion feature, thoroughly, does not care what the challenge rating of the beast becomes. There's no call to recalculate it. And since the only rules for determining CR are in the DMG, it's not something the player needs to know, either. If the DM wanted to concern themselves with it, they could. But it can just as easily be ignored.
The ranger's companion exists in this weird sort of nebulous space wherr it both is and isn't a creature. It uses statistics, altered by the ranger, but doesn't act entirely on its own. It's kind of like a ridden mount, in that regard, but the intent is that it's treated as an extension of the ranger: allowing them to be in 2 places at once.
Challenge Rating is only really relevant to enemies and certain spells when called for it. If I outfit a warhorse in barding, it's CR technically should change. But the entry in the MM also instructs us not to. (We won't dig into whether or not certain creatures have a correct CR.)
Yes, allowing a companion to become a sidekick makes them stronger. It also doesn't necessarilly make them stronger than any other equivalent sidekick. So, while a ranger could have both a companion and a sidekick, it doesn't break the game to allow a merger. I would actually find it disappointing to compare the two.
The second, if you're using Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, is to allow the companion to take levels as a warrior sidekick. They technically meet the requirements, ...
Do they really? I mean, you find the beast's stat block in the MM, but the beast companion has different stats. The Beastmaster rules also specify the beast you can choose can't have a CR higher than 1/4. Am I really the only one who thinks that's pushing the "technicalities" a bit far?
You can, indeed. The Ranger's Companion feature adds bonuses which, on paper, would affect the challenge rating. But there's no direction to recalculate their challenge rating, and the feature is wholly uninterested in the challenge rating. And since sidekicks can be any creature with a challenge rating of 1/2 or lower, a medium beast of 1/4 or lower would qualify.
There's no shortage of Tweets from Jeremy Crawford on the idea that a sidekick is primarily meant to be additive. Anyone could have one, and a ranger could even take one on in addition to a beast companion. That said, the DM's word is final.
The dmg has rules for recalculated cr. Used for adding hp or skills or damage or saving throws or pollymorph.
I would post it but I'm on a phone in the woods with poor signal du to holiday.
I'm well-aquainted with those rules. I'm saying the class feature doesn't care. And I pointed to Crawford's own words saying it's okay.
I honestly don't get the controversy here.
DMs can allow anything and everything. That isn’t much of an argument. Saying a DM “might allow” something is more of an indication that the RAW don’t than anything else.
How does the class feature not care? It literally says to choose a beast with a CR of 1/4 or lower. I don’t see what you are trying to say here.
The ranger's companion feature, thoroughly, does not care what the challenge rating of the beast becomes. There's no call to recalculate it. And since the only rules for determining CR are in the DMG, it's not something the player needs to know, either. If the DM wanted to concern themselves with it, they could. But it can just as easily be ignored.
The ranger's companion exists in this weird sort of nebulous space wherr it both is and isn't a creature. It uses statistics, altered by the ranger, but doesn't act entirely on its own. It's kind of like a ridden mount, in that regard, but the intent is that it's treated as an extension of the ranger: allowing them to be in 2 places at once.
Challenge Rating is only really relevant to enemies and certain spells when called for it. If I outfit a warhorse in barding, it's CR technically should change. But the entry in the MM also instructs us not to. (We won't dig into whether or not certain creatures have a correct CR.)
Yes, allowing a companion to become a sidekick makes them stronger. It also doesn't necessarilly make them stronger than any other equivalent sidekick. So, while a ranger could have both a companion and a sidekick, it doesn't break the game to allow a merger. I would actually find it disappointing to compare the two.
The Companion feature doesn’t care, because the CR of a party member is irrelevant. And of course a ranger could have both a companion and a sidekick, if the DM allows a sidekick in the first place. None of that means turning a companion into a sidekick doesn’t significantly power up the companion or that what the rules say about companion and sidekick requirements somehow doesn’t apply when combining both.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I just realized this thread is about the Ranger as a whole, not just the Beast Master.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All hail the great and mighty platypus.
Resisting is simply standing in front of the tide and pushing at it. Even if you endure at first, you will eventually break down. Adapting, by contrast, is turning into a fish.
-me
Rangers are not underpowered. They’re just exploration-oriented.
The second, if you're using Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, is to allow the companion to take levels as a warrior sidekick. They technically meet the requirements, ...
Do they really? I mean, you find the beast's stat block in the MM, but the beast companion has different stats. The Beastmaster rules also specify the beast you can choose can't have a CR higher than 1/4. Am I really the only one who thinks that's pushing the "technicalities" a bit far?
You can, indeed. The Ranger's Companion feature adds bonuses which, on paper, would affect the challenge rating. But there's no direction to recalculate their challenge rating, and the feature is wholly uninterested in the challenge rating. And since sidekicks can be any creature with a challenge rating of 1/2 or lower, a medium beast of 1/4 or lower would qualify.
There's no shortage of Tweets from Jeremy Crawford on the idea that a sidekick is primarily meant to be additive. Anyone could have one, and a ranger could even take one on in addition to a beast companion. That said, the DM's word is final.
The dmg has rules for recalculated cr. Used for adding hp or skills or damage or saving throws or pollymorph.
I would post it but I'm on a phone in the woods with poor signal du to holiday.
I'm well-aquainted with those rules. I'm saying the class feature doesn't care. And I pointed to Crawford's own words saying it's okay.
I honestly don't get the controversy here.
DMs can allow anything and everything. That isn’t much of an argument. Saying a DM “might allow” something is more of an indication that the RAW don’t than anything else.
How does the class feature not care? It literally says to choose a beast with a CR of 1/4 or lower. I don’t see what you are trying to say here.
i think what he means to say here is that becuase the feature does not say exactly how much or how little its challenge rating increases, it does not increase or decrease at all, something that is complete BS since that is not really how CR is supposed to work? And hey even if the main designer for 5e allows an combination does not mean that the combination itself will be balanced, and as per this combination in particular it probably isint seeing as to how an sidekick or companion is never meant to outshadow party members, something they absolutely can do if you are using both of these together, it will inevetably start to outshine the damage output of the other martial characters in the party during tier 2 of the game, will have the equivalent of expertise in all its skills and be pulling of tricks no other party member can do, they were not designed to go together like that, each feature was meant to be its own valid progression for an monster but with both of them together is simply too much
I’m interpreting the point as, the action economy of the beast is intertwined with the ranger now, not separate. The CR 1/4 beast is absorbed by the PC in a way. It’s part of what people hate about the subclass, how it doesn’t “add to the class”. That being said, whether crunching the CR math (defensive and offensive) or just using a third or half the total level of the ranger, how fun would it be to turn Cringer into Battlecat?!?!
please elaborate on all of this
LOL! Which part?
As far as the CR 1/4 of the beast and it being the ranger's beast companion, many people are disappointed with how the PHB beast master plays or "feels" in that it takes action economy form the ranger to have the beast do anything. So my thought was it doesn't really add to the ranger's CR (I know PCs don't have CR, I'm just using it for the point) it is part of the ranger's CR. From a game design and balance perspective. The beast's actions don't stack on top of the ranger's like in earlier editions and in the (now very old and unofficial) revised ranger.
In terms of a polymorph target, I can see either point being a valid method of getting to the end result of what level CR a beast companion could be polymorphed into. Either some portion of the ranger's total level, as if you where polymorphing the ranger, or calculating the beast as it sits there, with all of the ranger's bonuses attached. One way to look at it is if the ranger is not around or incapacitated, the beast acts on it's own, making it's attacks (one or two, depending on the ranger's level), moving, and reactions, all with the ranger's bonuses applied, so it is functionally a higher CR. What would the CR of the beast companion be if the ranger wasn't around? That's a good way to do it. However, it doesn't work the same in reverse, as, if the beast dies the ranger is still a fully functional ranger (which I know doesn't mean very much to a lot of people, but for calculating CR ranger's, especially before levels 11+, have just as good offensive and defensive capabilities as all other martial classes without their subclass).
As far as the CR 1/4 of the beast and it being the ranger's beast companion, many people are disappointed with how the PHB beast master plays or "feels" in that it takes action economy form the ranger to have the beast do anything. So my thought was it doesn't really add to the ranger's CR (I know PCs don't have CR, I'm just using it for the point) it is part of the ranger's CR. From a game design and balance perspective. The beast's actions don't stack on top of the ranger's like in earlier editions and in the (now very old and unofficial) revised ranger.
This is about the power level of the Ranger class, and in this case the Beastmaster subclass specifically. No need to call it CR, in this entire 30+ page thread up until sidekicks came up we've been talking about how powerful the (sub)class is or is not without using that term. And yes, the companion is part of that power level - but that's the case regardless of action economy. Whether people like it or not, whether it gets its own action economy or not (it doesn't), whether it sucks or not (it doesn't), whether it's a long rest ability or not (it's not), the benefit of the Beastmaster subclass is getting a beast companion. Beefing up that benefit by tacking on the sidekick benefits is the same as beefing up the subclass. Aside from the rules not allowing it (technically or otherwise), it should be clear this would be a very significant boost and shift in the (Beastmaster) Ranger's balance, no?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
As far as the CR 1/4 of the beast and it being the ranger's beast companion, many people are disappointed with how the PHB beast master plays or "feels" in that it takes action economy form the ranger to have the beast do anything. So my thought was it doesn't really add to the ranger's CR (I know PCs don't have CR, I'm just using it for the point) it is part of the ranger's CR. From a game design and balance perspective. The beast's actions don't stack on top of the ranger's like in earlier editions and in the (now very old and unofficial) revised ranger.
This is about the power level of the Ranger class, and in this case the Beastmaster subclass specifically. No need to call it CR, in this entire 30+ page thread up until sidekicks came up we've been talking about how powerful the (sub)class is or is not without using that term. And yes, the companion is part of that power level - but that's the case regardless of action economy. Whether people like it or not, whether it gets its own action economy or not (it doesn't), whether it sucks or not (it doesn't), whether it's a long rest ability or not (it's not), the benefit of the Beastmaster subclass is getting a beast companion. Beefing up that benefit by tacking on the sidekick benefits is the same as beefing up the subclass. Aside from the rules not allowing it (technically or otherwise), it should be clear this would be a very significant boost and shift in the (Beastmaster) Ranger's balance, no?
I agree with your last statement. Sidekicks have almost no place in the ranger power level discussion.
What i do see from this thread is a need for more ranger sage advice answers or an actual explanation of some rules interactions. It would eliminate half the problems and arguments.
As far as the CR 1/4 of the beast and it being the ranger's beast companion, many people are disappointed with how the PHB beast master plays or "feels" in that it takes action economy form the ranger to have the beast do anything. So my thought was it doesn't really add to the ranger's CR (I know PCs don't have CR, I'm just using it for the point) it is part of the ranger's CR. From a game design and balance perspective. The beast's actions don't stack on top of the ranger's like in earlier editions and in the (now very old and unofficial) revised ranger.
This is about the power level of the Ranger class, and in this case the Beastmaster subclass specifically. No need to call it CR, in this entire 30+ page thread up until sidekicks came up we've been talking about how powerful the (sub)class is or is not without using that term. And yes, the companion is part of that power level - but that's the case regardless of action economy. Whether people like it or not, whether it gets its own action economy or not (it doesn't), whether it sucks or not (it doesn't), whether it's a long rest ability or not (it's not), the benefit of the Beastmaster subclass is getting a beast companion. Beefing up that benefit by tacking on the sidekick benefits is the same as beefing up the subclass. Aside from the rules not allowing it (technically or otherwise), it should be clear this would be a very significant boost and shift in the (Beastmaster) Ranger's balance, no?
I agree with your last statement. Sidekicks have almost no place in the ranger power level discussion.
What i do see from this thread is a need for more ranger sage advice answers or an actual explanation of some rules interactions. It would eliminate half the problems and arguments.
Yes. More official clarification would be great. Or a rewrite. Not to change the abilities, but to make them crystal clear for all. And not a tweet fromJC that is 5 years old. Something offical in the SAC.
As far as the CR 1/4 of the beast and it being the ranger's beast companion, many people are disappointed with how the PHB beast master plays or "feels" in that it takes action economy form the ranger to have the beast do anything. So my thought was it doesn't really add to the ranger's CR (I know PCs don't have CR, I'm just using it for the point) it is part of the ranger's CR. From a game design and balance perspective. The beast's actions don't stack on top of the ranger's like in earlier editions and in the (now very old and unofficial) revised ranger.
This is about the power level of the Ranger class, and in this case the Beastmaster subclass specifically. No need to call it CR, in this entire 30+ page thread up until sidekicks came up we've been talking about how powerful the (sub)class is or is not without using that term. And yes, the companion is part of that power level - but that's the case regardless of action economy. Whether people like it or not, whether it gets its own action economy or not (it doesn't), whether it sucks or not (it doesn't), whether it's a long rest ability or not (it's not), the benefit of the Beastmaster subclass is getting a beast companion. Beefing up that benefit by tacking on the sidekick benefits is the same as beefing up the subclass. Aside from the rules not allowing it (technically or otherwise), it should be clear this would be a very significant boost and shift in the (Beastmaster) Ranger's balance, no?
I agree with your last statement. Sidekicks have almost no place in the ranger power level discussion.
What i do see from this thread is a need for more ranger sage advice answers or an actual explanation of some rules interactions. It would eliminate half the problems and arguments.
Yes. More official clarification would be great. Or a rewrite. Not to change the abilities, but to make them crystal clear for all. And not a tweet fromJC that is 5 years old. Something offical in the SAC.
Even the SAC is only quasi-official. The advice contained within can readily be accepted or discarded by anyone. But it does give developer insights; which can be useful.
That said, we did allow a conversation about something outside the class to direct the conversation for a page or two. That's no bueno.
In general I'd say the regular features are better, but more situational; if you've got a campaign and DM that demands proper exploration and survival elements, and gives you room to scout and set up ambushes, then the vanilla features are great.
The exception is probably primeval awareness; it's situational even for a Ranger-friendly campaign. Again it's potentially better, due to the wide range but with short duration and a spell slot cost it's just so rare that's going to be genuinely better. I'd rather take the bonus spell list version as every spell you don't have to take from your limited picks is a big bonus IMO, even if they're spells you might not have taken, as adds utility and flexibility you might not otherwise have. They also cost a spell slot to use of course, but most have durations upwards of 10 minutes.
Otherwise the replacement features are more generally useful so ideal for campaigns that are less Ranger-friendly; Favored Foe is good for Rangers with multiple concentration spells as it saves slots compared to re-casting Hunter's Mark, Deft Explorer gives several generally useful benefits (I'd pick it for the expertise bonus alone in a campaign where I didn't expect terrain type to matter much), and Nature's Veil requires no setup compared to Hide in Plain Sight, so while the latter is better for setting up an ambush, the former is good as a panic button to escape, or as a means of gaining advantage.
In general I think the balance works out pretty good between no replacement features and all replacement features; but yeah, I'd be tempted to take the replacement Primal Awareness on all characters, whereas the others are more build and/or campaign/DM specific.
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.
Optional replacements for favored enemy, natural explorer, primeval awareness, hide in plain sight?
the favoured foe feature kinda sucks ass compared to using any other concentration spell and is only handy becuase you do not have to sacrofice action economy to use it but if you are never going to be using favoured enemy anyways it is better than nothing, the natural explorer benefits are kinda bland, and the two extra languages just become cumbersome during character creation as you have to come up with all the languages you are using and the rest is mostly just some flavour of combat buff, the new nature's veil is a combat buff disguised as a exploration buff that is essentially doge + disengage action + advantage on all your attacks that turn (could be argued if this is comparable to cunning action/ ki, probably strong enough to hold its own), and does not have the same class feature interactions as Hide apparently, once you have the Vanish feature you could reasobably dissapear arround a corner without trace due to untrackabillity, primeval awareness changes from something that interacts with your favoured enemy feature to bonus spells and bonus spell slots with the caveat that the spells themselves are a bit situational and one of them is a ritual so you will not constantly use it, spellcasting focus is something that paladins already have only that holy symbols are superior spellcasting foci thanks to the fact that you can inscribe it into a shield and use somatic components with that hand, druidic warrior is just granting shillelagh to a class that will use it past 5th level, blind fighting might be fun for rangers who specialize in fighting against ambush monsters and ghosts, you will have to replace it once you reach 19th level since it became redundant the level before however, and i think it would have been very funny if rangers had acess to unarmed fighting.
Nature's veil also simultaneously makes gloom stalkers more and less valid since their extra attack variant is essentially accuracy you do not need much while you have advantage on every attack
TL;DR i think this makes the ranger stabbier but sacrofices a fair bit of exploration abilities to make that happen, and a lot of it leaves a lot to be desired
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
They also cost a spell slot to use of course, but most have durations upwards of 10 minutes.
You can cast each of these spells once without expending a spell slot. Once you cast a spell in this way, you can't do so again until you finish a long rest.
Favored Foe is good for Rangers with multiple concentration spells as it saves slots compared to re-casting Hunter's Mark,
this sentence just makes no sense at all, rangers with many concentration spells will find Favoured Foe less useful, not more useful as it is basically another spell that becomes completely worthless while concentrating on another
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Favored Foe is good for Rangers with multiple concentration spells as it saves slots compared to re-casting Hunter's Mark,
this sentence just makes no sense at all, rangers with many concentration spells will find Favoured Foe less useful, not more useful as it is basically another spell that becomes completely worthless while concentrating on another
In a white room ideal situation, yes. Hunter’s mark is superior to favored foe. In terms of losing concentration, many battles between long rests, maximizing a quick battle against a single big target when two weapon fighting, or fighting many small enemies, favored foe works and works well. It’s not hunter’s mark by a long shot (pun intended) but in a battle heavy table or campaign it is a huge welcome.
Favored Foe is good for Rangers with multiple concentration spells as it saves slots compared to re-casting Hunter's Mark,
this sentence just makes no sense at all, rangers with many concentration spells will find Favoured Foe less useful, not more useful as it is basically another spell that becomes completely worthless while concentrating on another
In a white room ideal situation, yes. Hunter’s mark is superior to favored foe. In terms of losing concentration, many battles between long rests, maximizing a quick battle against a single big target when two weapon fighting, or fighting many small enemies, favored foe works and works well. It’s not hunter’s mark by a long shot (pun intended) but in a battle heavy table or campaign it is a huge welcome.
1) the original sentence still does not make much sense, yes the thing is handy for saving spell slots in very long adventuring days, but rangers who have fewer concentration spells should still in theory appreciate that feature more than rangers with more concentration spells
2) also i did not mention Hunter's mark by name, this is not really about hunter's mark this is about a hypothetical ranger armed to the teeth in a spell list with hits such as spike growth, conjure animals, summon beast, ensnaring strike and a whole host of other fantastic spells on the ranger spell list that require concentration who would be incapable of using any of em' while they are benefiting from their damage boost
3) hunters mark is not particularly good at spreading damage between many targets seeing as how you need a bonus action to do so? And Favoured Foe is somehow even worse as it does not allow you to change targets at all and can only deal extra damage once per turn, if you do not have Favoured Foe active on a target for at least three turns or so you are kind of letting it go to waste, i guess you could theoretically use it to attack multiple targets and not have to worry about missing out on the damage bonus but that is about it
4) your second sentence is very long and a bit difficult to interpret
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Favored Foe is good for Rangers with multiple concentration spells as it saves slots compared to re-casting Hunter's Mark,
this sentence just makes no sense at all, rangers with many concentration spells will find Favoured Foe less useful, not more useful as it is basically another spell that becomes completely worthless while concentrating on another
Because quite a few Ranger concentration spells are short-lived (i.e- concentrate until they trigger, so usually one or two rounds), but activating them means interrupting Hunter's Mark if you use it; if you use Favored Foe instead you save on wasted slots due to switching to other concentration spells.
If you don't have many concentration spells then you may be better off casting Hunter's Mark and keeping that up for as long as possible for the extra damage it'll do over Favored Foe most of the time.
For example, lets say you have Hunter's Mark active, but there's a perfect opportunity to use Lightning Arrow, doing so will end hunter's mark, so you've burned two spell slots already. Bringing Hunter's Mark back afterwards means burning a third slot, but using Favored Foe afterwards won't (and technically you can even do it as part of using Lightning Arrow), so you've saved that extra slot for later. How much benefit you get will depend on the exact makeup of your adventuring days; sometimes you'll know you're going into another fight within the hour so casting Hunter's Mark again is no big burden, but it's nice to have the option of another resource to burn instead.
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.
Ranger is and was fine for the first 5 levels, at which point it starts falling behind in a combat situation. Fighter gets more feats by then, more attacks etc. while paladin smites.
problem with UA was that it lumped even more stuff into the first levels where rangers were totally fine, making them totally overpowered in the beginning (I have played it both with and without ua).
personally I think the ranger could get a third attack at some point and it would be fixed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
i think what he means to say here is that becuase the feature does not say exactly how much or how little its challenge rating increases, it does not increase or decrease at all, something that is complete BS since that is not really how CR is supposed to work? And hey even if the main designer for 5e allows an combination does not mean that the combination itself will be balanced, and as per this combination in particular it probably isint seeing as to how an sidekick or companion is never meant to outshadow party members, something they absolutely can do if you are using both of these together, it will inevetably start to outshine the damage output of the other martial characters in the party during tier 2 of the game, will have the equivalent of expertise in all its skills and be pulling of tricks no other party member can do, they were not designed to go together like that, each feature was meant to be its own valid progression for an monster but with both of them together is simply too much
please elaborate on all of this
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
The ranger's companion feature, thoroughly, does not care what the challenge rating of the beast becomes. There's no call to recalculate it. And since the only rules for determining CR are in the DMG, it's not something the player needs to know, either. If the DM wanted to concern themselves with it, they could. But it can just as easily be ignored.
The ranger's companion exists in this weird sort of nebulous space wherr it both is and isn't a creature. It uses statistics, altered by the ranger, but doesn't act entirely on its own. It's kind of like a ridden mount, in that regard, but the intent is that it's treated as an extension of the ranger: allowing them to be in 2 places at once.
Challenge Rating is only really relevant to enemies and certain spells when called for it. If I outfit a warhorse in barding, it's CR technically should change. But the entry in the MM also instructs us not to. (We won't dig into whether or not certain creatures have a correct CR.)
Yes, allowing a companion to become a sidekick makes them stronger. It also doesn't necessarilly make them stronger than any other equivalent sidekick. So, while a ranger could have both a companion and a sidekick, it doesn't break the game to allow a merger. I would actually find it disappointing to compare the two.
The Companion feature doesn’t care, because the CR of a party member is irrelevant. And of course a ranger could have both a companion and a sidekick, if the DM allows a sidekick in the first place. None of that means turning a companion into a sidekick doesn’t significantly power up the companion or that what the rules say about companion and sidekick requirements somehow doesn’t apply when combining both.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I just realized this thread is about the Ranger as a whole, not just the Beast Master.
All hail the great and mighty platypus.
Resisting is simply standing in front of the tide and pushing at it. Even if you endure at first, you will eventually break down. Adapting, by contrast, is turning into a fish.
-me
Rangers are not underpowered. They’re just exploration-oriented.
My homebrew setting: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/story-lore/94809-wakai-a-setting-inspired-by-japanese-folklore-and
This account is kinda old and I haven’t used it in a while
LOL! Which part?
As far as the CR 1/4 of the beast and it being the ranger's beast companion, many people are disappointed with how the PHB beast master plays or "feels" in that it takes action economy form the ranger to have the beast do anything. So my thought was it doesn't really add to the ranger's CR (I know PCs don't have CR, I'm just using it for the point) it is part of the ranger's CR. From a game design and balance perspective. The beast's actions don't stack on top of the ranger's like in earlier editions and in the (now very old and unofficial) revised ranger.
In terms of a polymorph target, I can see either point being a valid method of getting to the end result of what level CR a beast companion could be polymorphed into. Either some portion of the ranger's total level, as if you where polymorphing the ranger, or calculating the beast as it sits there, with all of the ranger's bonuses attached. One way to look at it is if the ranger is not around or incapacitated, the beast acts on it's own, making it's attacks (one or two, depending on the ranger's level), moving, and reactions, all with the ranger's bonuses applied, so it is functionally a higher CR. What would the CR of the beast companion be if the ranger wasn't around? That's a good way to do it. However, it doesn't work the same in reverse, as, if the beast dies the ranger is still a fully functional ranger (which I know doesn't mean very much to a lot of people, but for calculating CR ranger's, especially before levels 11+, have just as good offensive and defensive capabilities as all other martial classes without their subclass).
yes but we sort of slipped into the topic of the beast master after a bit
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
This is about the power level of the Ranger class, and in this case the Beastmaster subclass specifically. No need to call it CR, in this entire 30+ page thread up until sidekicks came up we've been talking about how powerful the (sub)class is or is not without using that term. And yes, the companion is part of that power level - but that's the case regardless of action economy. Whether people like it or not, whether it gets its own action economy or not (it doesn't), whether it sucks or not (it doesn't), whether it's a long rest ability or not (it's not), the benefit of the Beastmaster subclass is getting a beast companion. Beefing up that benefit by tacking on the sidekick benefits is the same as beefing up the subclass. Aside from the rules not allowing it (technically or otherwise), it should be clear this would be a very significant boost and shift in the (Beastmaster) Ranger's balance, no?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I agree with your last statement. Sidekicks have almost no place in the ranger power level discussion.
What i do see from this thread is a need for more ranger sage advice answers or an actual explanation of some rules interactions. It would eliminate half the problems and arguments.
Yes. More official clarification would be great. Or a rewrite. Not to change the abilities, but to make them crystal clear for all. And not a tweet fromJC that is 5 years old. Something offical in the SAC.
Even the SAC is only quasi-official. The advice contained within can readily be accepted or discarded by anyone. But it does give developer insights; which can be useful.
That said, we did allow a conversation about something outside the class to direct the conversation for a page or two. That's no bueno.
Post Tasha’s thoughts?
Optional replacements for favored enemy, natural explorer, primeval awareness, hide in plain sight?
In general I'd say the regular features are better, but more situational; if you've got a campaign and DM that demands proper exploration and survival elements, and gives you room to scout and set up ambushes, then the vanilla features are great.
The exception is probably primeval awareness; it's situational even for a Ranger-friendly campaign. Again it's potentially better, due to the wide range but with short duration and a spell slot cost it's just so rare that's going to be genuinely better. I'd rather take the bonus spell list version as every spell you don't have to take from your limited picks is a big bonus IMO, even if they're spells you might not have taken, as adds utility and flexibility you might not otherwise have. They also cost a spell slot to use of course, but most have durations upwards of 10 minutes.
Otherwise the replacement features are more generally useful so ideal for campaigns that are less Ranger-friendly; Favored Foe is good for Rangers with multiple concentration spells as it saves slots compared to re-casting Hunter's Mark, Deft Explorer gives several generally useful benefits (I'd pick it for the expertise bonus alone in a campaign where I didn't expect terrain type to matter much), and Nature's Veil requires no setup compared to Hide in Plain Sight, so while the latter is better for setting up an ambush, the former is good as a panic button to escape, or as a means of gaining advantage.
In general I think the balance works out pretty good between no replacement features and all replacement features; but yeah, I'd be tempted to take the replacement Primal Awareness on all characters, whereas the others are more build and/or campaign/DM specific.
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.
the favoured foe feature kinda sucks ass compared to using any other concentration spell and is only handy becuase you do not have to sacrofice action economy to use it but if you are never going to be using favoured enemy anyways it is better than nothing, the natural explorer benefits are kinda bland, and the two extra languages just become cumbersome during character creation as you have to come up with all the languages you are using and the rest is mostly just some flavour of combat buff, the new nature's veil is a combat buff disguised as a exploration buff that is essentially doge + disengage action + advantage on all your attacks that turn (could be argued if this is comparable to cunning action/ ki, probably strong enough to hold its own), and does not have the same class feature interactions as Hide apparently, once you have the Vanish feature you could reasobably dissapear arround a corner without trace due to untrackabillity, primeval awareness changes from something that interacts with your favoured enemy feature to bonus spells and bonus spell slots with the caveat that the spells themselves are a bit situational and one of them is a ritual so you will not constantly use it, spellcasting focus is something that paladins already have only that holy symbols are superior spellcasting foci thanks to the fact that you can inscribe it into a shield and use somatic components with that hand, druidic warrior is just granting shillelagh to a class that will use it past 5th level, blind fighting might be fun for rangers who specialize in fighting against ambush monsters and ghosts, you will have to replace it once you reach 19th level since it became redundant the level before however, and i think it would have been very funny if rangers had acess to unarmed fighting.
Nature's veil also simultaneously makes gloom stalkers more and less valid since their extra attack variant is essentially accuracy you do not need much while you have advantage on every attack
TL;DR i think this makes the ranger stabbier but sacrofices a fair bit of exploration abilities to make that happen, and a lot of it leaves a lot to be desired
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
You can cast each of these spells once without
expending a spell slot. Once you cast a spell in
this way, you can't do so again until you finish a
long rest.
this sentence just makes no sense at all, rangers with many concentration spells will find Favoured Foe less useful, not more useful as it is basically another spell that becomes completely worthless while concentrating on another
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
In a white room ideal situation, yes. Hunter’s mark is superior to favored foe. In terms of losing concentration, many battles between long rests, maximizing a quick battle against a single big target when two weapon fighting, or fighting many small enemies, favored foe works and works well. It’s not hunter’s mark by a long shot (pun intended) but in a battle heavy table or campaign it is a huge welcome.
1) the original sentence still does not make much sense, yes the thing is handy for saving spell slots in very long adventuring days, but rangers who have fewer concentration spells should still in theory appreciate that feature more than rangers with more concentration spells
2) also i did not mention Hunter's mark by name, this is not really about hunter's mark this is about a hypothetical ranger armed to the teeth in a spell list with hits such as spike growth, conjure animals, summon beast, ensnaring strike and a whole host of other fantastic spells on the ranger spell list that require concentration who would be incapable of using any of em' while they are benefiting from their damage boost
3) hunters mark is not particularly good at spreading damage between many targets seeing as how you need a bonus action to do so? And Favoured Foe is somehow even worse as it does not allow you to change targets at all and can only deal extra damage once per turn, if you do not have Favoured Foe active on a target for at least three turns or so you are kind of letting it go to waste, i guess you could theoretically use it to attack multiple targets and not have to worry about missing out on the damage bonus but that is about it
4) your second sentence is very long and a bit difficult to interpret
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
1. Sorry. I should edit my thoughts before typing.
2. Oh yes! Lots of great spells! That’s not really a favored foe issue though, is it? I know what you are saying. Very true.
3. Yeah. And only on a subsequent turn too!
4. Sorry. Translation: It is a good addition for lots of fighting.
Because quite a few Ranger concentration spells are short-lived (i.e- concentrate until they trigger, so usually one or two rounds), but activating them means interrupting Hunter's Mark if you use it; if you use Favored Foe instead you save on wasted slots due to switching to other concentration spells.
If you don't have many concentration spells then you may be better off casting Hunter's Mark and keeping that up for as long as possible for the extra damage it'll do over Favored Foe most of the time.
For example, lets say you have Hunter's Mark active, but there's a perfect opportunity to use Lightning Arrow, doing so will end hunter's mark, so you've burned two spell slots already. Bringing Hunter's Mark back afterwards means burning a third slot, but using Favored Foe afterwards won't (and technically you can even do it as part of using Lightning Arrow), so you've saved that extra slot for later. How much benefit you get will depend on the exact makeup of your adventuring days; sometimes you'll know you're going into another fight within the hour so casting Hunter's Mark again is no big burden, but it's nice to have the option of another resource to burn instead.
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.
Ranger is and was fine for the first 5 levels, at which point it starts falling behind in a combat situation. Fighter gets more feats by then, more attacks etc. while paladin smites.
problem with UA was that it lumped even more stuff into the first levels where rangers were totally fine, making them totally overpowered in the beginning (I have played it both with and without ua).
personally I think the ranger could get a third attack at some point and it would be fixed.