I can agree with this. I just don't think the PHB ranger favored terrain and enemy succeeds in being mechanically useful often enough to warrant it being a major class feature. The RR seemingly goes the other way making it mechanically useful is major ways while perhaps not contributing to ticket story telling. Of the two options, I think I can overcome weaker sorry telling. You can't easily overcome weaker mechanics.
I'm not making the argument that the PHB Ranger Favored Terrain and Favored Enemy are great options by RAW, actually. As I've noted above, my point is just that homebrew rules to fix them are not that difficult to implement. I know that you're primarily concerned with how to make this work for your home game, Kendis, and that's fine on a micro level. However, some of us actually do want to see WoTC test and print a new Ranger base class and a smooth-to-play Beastmaster subclass (I think we mostly agree on that one) that covers our concerns about power parity without sacrificing theme and flavor to the altar of power-gaming. Thus we keep commenting on forums b/c we want the developers to pay attention to what is pretty much the shrunken step-child status of the base Ranger.
While it can be cool to have a pet wolf, I've played campaigns where the whole party has gained a pet, simply because that was how the story played out. You don't HAVE to have Beastmaster to get a pet in DND. Also, concerning the damage, the Hunter subclass gives you Extra Attack, which I much prefer over a pet. I've done both Beastmaster and Hunter, and I enjoy Hunter more. You do a whole lot more damage with Hunter (especially if you're dual-wielding magic shortswords with Extra Attack) and the pet usually only does only 1 or 2d4 damage.
HI think there is a bit of misunderstanding about people not liking the Beastmaster class. I believe the Beastmaster class is perhaps one the of classes that most people really WANT to play as a ranger. The idea of a ranger with their trusted animal companion sharing a deep bond that others could only begin to understand is the core of what “should” be the Beastmaster class. The rangers companion “should” be the 2nd half of the ranger themselves. The rangers companion “should” be just as important as the ranger and “should” level, gain skills, gain abilities, etc.. much in the same way as the ranger does. The rangers companion “should” almost be like playing a second character in conjunction with the ranger. However, as it is the Beastmaster class simply falls short in every way in regards to the core of the class (the rangers companion). What “should” be the focus of the class is not focused on at all. Currently, In many ways it almost feels punitive to have the companion. The most common examples include: lack of death saving throws, lack of hit points, needing to waste the rangers actions to make your companion do anything, and the list goes on and on. The class seriously needs to be taken back to the drawing board. The lack of attention and detail concerning the rangers companion is what I believe to be the Achilles heel of what should be one the best and most enjoyable classes in d&d.
Heres a few fixes that I believe could help:
-Add death saving throws
-The bond between a ranger and their companion should elevate the bonded beast above and beyond an ordinary version of the beast. Perhaps the bond creates a telepathic connection between the ranger and the beast.
-The companion should gain abilities, extra stats, or even feats as it levels alongside the ranger. Perhaps an extra attack via whatever natural means it has( bite, claw, stinger, etc..). Perhaps one beast feat could be sharing damage between the ranger and the beast. Perhaps another feat could include giving advantages to certain skills/ability checks/attacks, etc.. to the ranger if within a certain proximity. Perhaps being close to the ranger could provide inspiration. There are many possibilities along the lines of allowing the ranger companions to gain feats.
-The ranger doesn’t just have a bond with their companion, but the companion also has a bond with the ranger. That being said, the companion should have independent actions or even bonus actions. Perhaps the companion would act on its own to rescue its ranger if the ranger would be incapacitated. Maybe if the ranger and companion got separated the companion would attempt to find the ranger. Simply put, the companion should be seen more like another member of the party able to think and act within the confines of its stats.
-Expanding the list of which beasts can become ranger companions along with the ability to take beasts of higher challenge ratings.
Anyhow, numerous suggestions have been made over the years. I just wish the Beastmaster class would get some serious attention and be updated to focus on the “Beastmaster” portion of the Beastmaster class.
-The bond between a ranger and their companion should elevate the bonded beast above and beyond an ordinary version of the beast. Perhaps the bond creates a telepathic connection between the ranger and the beast.
-The companion should gain abilities, extra stats, or even feats as it levels alongside the ranger. Perhaps an extra attack via whatever natural means it has( bite, claw, stinger, etc..). Perhaps one beast feat could be sharing damage between the ranger and the beast. Perhaps another feat could include giving advantages to certain skills/ability checks/attacks, etc.. to the ranger if within a certain proximity. Perhaps being close to the ranger could provide inspiration. There are many possibilities along the lines of allowing the ranger companions to gain feats.
-The ranger doesn’t just have a bond with their companion, but the companion also has a bond with the ranger. That being said, the companion should have independent actions or even bonus actions. Perhaps the companion would act on its own to rescue its ranger if the ranger would be incapacitated. Maybe if the ranger and companion got separated the companion would attempt to find the ranger. Simply put, the companion should be seen more like another member of the party able to think and act within the confines of its stats.
-Expanding the list of which beasts can become ranger companions along with the ability to take beasts of higher challenge ratings.
Nothing in the rules says animal companions can't make death saves. Death saves are skipped for monsters because it is too Mich bookkeeping and they are not meant to be saved anyway. Animal companions can and should be making death saves.
The beast adds the PC's proficiency bonus to AC, damage, and every roll it is proficient in. Its HP is also based on ranger level. Pretty sure this counts as being beyond a normal beast.
And the companion also gains additional features as the ranger levels up: magical attacks, extra attack, and shared spells.
As for how the animal acts, nothing says it is incapable of thinking without you (Though for balance reasons you must command it in battle).
I do think it would be nice if the ranger can select higher CR beasts as they level up similar to druid's wild shape. That is 1 thing you mentioned (sort of) that isn't already a thing.
I do think it would be nice if the ranger can select higher AC beasts as they level up similar to druid's wild shape. That is 1 thing you mentioned (sort of) that isn't already a thing.
Beasts can wear, thus so they go to up to 22-24 AC, more if you find magical barding. So the problem is not really the AC but the fact that no selectable beast has proficiency in saving throws, thus you cannot benefit from the beats adding your proficiency to saving throws making them too vulnerable against things that require saving throws.
Shepard druid is VERY different from beastmaster ranger. One of them is a full caster with a wide array of spells to cover all sorts of fields, and can vomit out spells with all their spell slots on top of interesting support options for not just your summons but your party members as well. The other one is a martial class where instead of getting all sorts of amazing passive combat oriented bonuses, you get an unoptimal combat companion that is barely relevant at the level you get it and it doesn't meaningfully scale.
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.
note that this opinion is based on the PHB version of the archtype. I haven't gotten a chance to actually play test it myself but at the very least it seems like it is somewhat capable of surviving even at tiers higher than 1 and solves a few inherent issues thanks to that.
With the right pet selection, beastmaster can be ok. The right animal companion, and using it the right way though is key. Most pets are not worth giving up any of your own attacks for.
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.
With the right pet selection, beastmaster can be ok. The right animal companion, and using it the right way though is key. Most pets are not worth giving up any of your own attacks for.
If you read the beast master description as specific changes to the general rules and allow the animal companion to take any action it could take if it was a DM controlled beast, then the ranger can command the animal companion to take the Ready action without using the ranger’s action. Then the animal companion can make one attack using its action and reaction. Problem solved.
On the character sheet, look for “Extras” and you can choose a companion and also track HP etc. I normally make a custom attack for the ranger (using BA if you use the new UA class variant rules) to remind me. Enjoy!
While it can be cool to have a pet wolf, I've played campaigns where the whole party has gained a pet, simply because that was how the story played out. You don't HAVE to have Beastmaster to get a pet in DND. Also, concerning the damage, the Hunter subclass gives you Extra Attack, which I much prefer over a pet. I've done both Beastmaster and Hunter, and I enjoy Hunter more. You do a whole lot more damage with Hunter (especially if you're dual-wielding magic shortswords with Extra Attack) and the pet usually only does only 1 or 2d4 damage.
That damage is only if you select something bad, e.g hawk or owl. Wolf and panther are good. The best pick is giant poisonous snake. It can do max 36!!! Damage a round. And consider allowing an animal like wolf to make two claw attacks as if duel wielding
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
'The Cleverness of mushrooms always surprises me!' - Ivern Bramblefoot.
If a class has a lot of options but it's only effective if you have to take specific options that may not even be thematically appropriate (like trying to run a giant poisonous snake in the Spine of the World), it's something of an admission that the class itself is broken. Especially if you're stuck relying on poison damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I've just started playing one, and we've hit level three. So far it's actually pretty good mechanically, but I can see how it feels bad where my ranger and wolf are chasing down goblins together but the wolf can't attack. It makes sense for balance, but it feels wrong.
I think from the early level the reason people don't like it is largely from an RP, flavor, and emotional reaction to the game-ey "you or your animal companion can attack but not both" action-economy balancing thing. But it's still really useful. Dodge on my wolf and opportunity attacks and the 40 foot movespeed to chase down nasties is actually pretty strong.
The complaints I've been seeing that I think have some merit are around the long-term survivability at higher levels - but I feel like that can be helped with spells and equipment, maybe?
In any case: It doesn't seem terrible just yet at level 3, but I can see how it feels bad even though mechanically it's fine. Then again, things could still decline after we hit Tier II and up. Will have to wait and see.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm not making the argument that the PHB Ranger Favored Terrain and Favored Enemy are great options by RAW, actually. As I've noted above, my point is just that homebrew rules to fix them are not that difficult to implement. I know that you're primarily concerned with how to make this work for your home game, Kendis, and that's fine on a micro level. However, some of us actually do want to see WoTC test and print a new Ranger base class and a smooth-to-play Beastmaster subclass (I think we mostly agree on that one) that covers our concerns about power parity without sacrificing theme and flavor to the altar of power-gaming. Thus we keep commenting on forums b/c we want the developers to pay attention to what is pretty much the shrunken step-child status of the base Ranger.
Ooh jeez, that was a lot of typos on my part. I guess that's what I get for using my phone.
Yeah I would love another pass at the ranger. I would be willing to bet we'll see something eventually. Hopefully sooner rather than later.
While it can be cool to have a pet wolf, I've played campaigns where the whole party has gained a pet, simply because that was how the story played out. You don't HAVE to have Beastmaster to get a pet in DND. Also, concerning the damage, the Hunter subclass gives you Extra Attack, which I much prefer over a pet. I've done both Beastmaster and Hunter, and I enjoy Hunter more. You do a whole lot more damage with Hunter (especially if you're dual-wielding magic shortswords with Extra Attack) and the pet usually only does only 1 or 2d4 damage.
HI think there is a bit of misunderstanding about people not liking the Beastmaster class. I believe the Beastmaster class is perhaps one the of classes that most people really WANT to play as a ranger. The idea of a ranger with their trusted animal companion sharing a deep bond that others could only begin to understand is the core of what “should” be the Beastmaster class. The rangers companion “should” be the 2nd half of the ranger themselves. The rangers companion “should” be just as important as the ranger and “should” level, gain skills, gain abilities, etc.. much in the same way as the ranger does. The rangers companion “should” almost be like playing a second character in conjunction with the ranger. However, as it is the Beastmaster class simply falls short in every way in regards to the core of the class (the rangers companion). What “should” be the focus of the class is not focused on at all. Currently, In many ways it almost feels punitive to have the companion. The most common examples include: lack of death saving throws, lack of hit points, needing to waste the rangers actions to make your companion do anything, and the list goes on and on. The class seriously needs to be taken back to the drawing board. The lack of attention and detail concerning the rangers companion is what I believe to be the Achilles heel of what should be one the best and most enjoyable classes in d&d.
Heres a few fixes that I believe could help:
-Add death saving throws
-The bond between a ranger and their companion should elevate the bonded beast above and beyond an ordinary version of the beast. Perhaps the bond creates a telepathic connection between the ranger and the beast.
-The companion should gain abilities, extra stats, or even feats as it levels alongside the ranger. Perhaps an extra attack via whatever natural means it has( bite, claw, stinger, etc..). Perhaps one beast feat could be sharing damage between the ranger and the beast. Perhaps another feat could include giving advantages to certain skills/ability checks/attacks, etc.. to the ranger if within a certain proximity. Perhaps being close to the ranger could provide inspiration. There are many possibilities along the lines of allowing the ranger companions to gain feats.
-The ranger doesn’t just have a bond with their companion, but the companion also has a bond with the ranger. That being said, the companion should have independent actions or even bonus actions. Perhaps the companion would act on its own to rescue its ranger if the ranger would be incapacitated. Maybe if the ranger and companion got separated the companion would attempt to find the ranger. Simply put, the companion should be seen more like another member of the party able to think and act within the confines of its stats.
-Expanding the list of which beasts can become ranger companions along with the ability to take beasts of higher challenge ratings.
Anyhow, numerous suggestions have been made over the years. I just wish the Beastmaster class would get some serious attention and be updated to focus on the “Beastmaster” portion of the Beastmaster class.
Ranger: Beastmaster
Nothing in the rules says animal companions can't make death saves. Death saves are skipped for monsters because it is too Mich bookkeeping and they are not meant to be saved anyway. Animal companions can and should be making death saves.
The beast adds the PC's proficiency bonus to AC, damage, and every roll it is proficient in. Its HP is also based on ranger level. Pretty sure this counts as being beyond a normal beast.
And the companion also gains additional features as the ranger levels up: magical attacks, extra attack, and shared spells.
As for how the animal acts, nothing says it is incapable of thinking without you (Though for balance reasons you must command it in battle).
I do think it would be nice if the ranger can select higher CR beasts as they level up similar to druid's wild shape. That is 1 thing you mentioned (sort of) that isn't already a thing.
Beasts can wear, thus so they go to up to 22-24 AC, more if you find magical barding. So the problem is not really the AC but the fact that no selectable beast has proficiency in saving throws, thus you cannot benefit from the beats adding your proficiency to saving throws making them too vulnerable against things that require saving throws.
Think he meant CR, not AC
Yeah I did. I fixed it.
I think Beastmaster Druid and Beastmaster Ranger are quite the same.
My Ready-to-rock&roll chars:
Dertinus Tristany // Amilcar Barca // Vicenç Sacrarius // Oriol Deulofeu // Grovtuk
Shepard druid is VERY different from beastmaster ranger. One of them is a full caster with a wide array of spells to cover all sorts of fields, and can vomit out spells with all their spell slots on top of interesting support options for not just your summons but your party members as well. The other one is a martial class where instead of getting all sorts of amazing passive combat oriented bonuses, you get an unoptimal combat companion that is barely relevant at the level you get it and it doesn't meaningfully scale.
^^ this person gets it.
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
note that this opinion is based on the PHB version of the archtype. I haven't gotten a chance to actually play test it myself but at the very least it seems like it is somewhat capable of surviving even at tiers higher than 1 and solves a few inherent issues thanks to that.
With the right pet selection, beastmaster can be ok. The right animal companion, and using it the right way though is key. Most pets are not worth giving up any of your own attacks for.
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
If you read the beast master description as specific changes to the general rules and allow the animal companion to take any action it could take if it was a DM controlled beast, then the ranger can command the animal companion to take the Ready action without using the ranger’s action. Then the animal companion can make one attack using its action and reaction. Problem solved.
I was wondering if there is a way to keep track of my companion on dnd beyond i am a beast master.
On the character sheet, look for “Extras” and you can choose a companion and also track HP etc. I normally make a custom attack for the ranger (using BA if you use the new UA class variant rules) to remind me. Enjoy!
---
Don't be Lawful Evil
#OpenDND
That damage is only if you select something bad, e.g hawk or owl. Wolf and panther are good. The best pick is giant poisonous snake. It can do max 36!!! Damage a round. And consider allowing an animal like wolf to make two claw attacks as if duel wielding
'The Cleverness of mushrooms always surprises me!' - Ivern Bramblefoot.
I'll worldbuild for your DnD games!
Just a D&D enjoyer, check out my fiverr page if you need any worldbuilding done for ya!
If a class has a lot of options but it's only effective if you have to take specific options that may not even be thematically appropriate (like trying to run a giant poisonous snake in the Spine of the World), it's something of an admission that the class itself is broken. Especially if you're stuck relying on poison damage.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
But, why only 1 companion pet instead of 1 tribe of animals as your companion pets ????
I see here the D&D 5th edition have some issues.
My Ready-to-rock&roll chars:
Dertinus Tristany // Amilcar Barca // Vicenç Sacrarius // Oriol Deulofeu // Grovtuk
I've just started playing one, and we've hit level three. So far it's actually pretty good mechanically, but I can see how it feels bad where my ranger and wolf are chasing down goblins together but the wolf can't attack. It makes sense for balance, but it feels wrong.
I think from the early level the reason people don't like it is largely from an RP, flavor, and emotional reaction to the game-ey "you or your animal companion can attack but not both" action-economy balancing thing. But it's still really useful. Dodge on my wolf and opportunity attacks and the 40 foot movespeed to chase down nasties is actually pretty strong.
The complaints I've been seeing that I think have some merit are around the long-term survivability at higher levels - but I feel like that can be helped with spells and equipment, maybe?
In any case: It doesn't seem terrible just yet at level 3, but I can see how it feels bad even though mechanically it's fine. Then again, things could still decline after we hit Tier II and up. Will have to wait and see.