Depending on which side of the RAI you come down on both the multiple commands and “beast companion” problems, a DM could probably houserule language to resolve both issues in 5 or 10 minutes of thought. I don’t think it really needs any more revision/redesign overall as a subclass at this point, just some errata or clear DM rulings.
Doesn’t this thread point out the problem with “WotC just needs to fix it”?
We can’t even agree on what “it” is. We have fundamental differences of opinion on the basic way to read the rules. How do you fix something when reasonable people see it so differently and no one seems to want to change their minds.
Rules written in plain language can only get you so far. It would be nice if WotC wrote up some examples of play so that everyone could look at them and be able to see where their understanding of the rules doesn’t mesh with what they intended. WotC seems to be loath to clarify what was intended and maybe each of us needs to come up with a solution that works for themselves.
Some things in the game just can't be calculated or quantified the same way RAW damage output from a "simple" class can be. Many things in the game require a high level of respect, trust, and communication between player and DM. Picking any of these things puts part of your gameplay directly in the hands of the DM, and many players hate that. The ranger in general, the beast master subclass from the PHB, illusion magic, scrying magic, overland travel, social encounters, exploration, hiding and stealth, and the like. All of this is open to HUGE interpretation and adjudication by the DM. Many players don't like this kind of game, won't play this kind of game, dismiss this kind of game, and put others down for this type of game.
I guess that's true... but there's also certain rules and classes that WotC knows are going to be an issue, every edition. Animal Companions, Wild Shape, and Polymorph have been hot topics for debate for over 30 years at this point, and the space that they're given in the PHB compared to other features and spells demonstrates that WotC knew they'd continue to be in 5E. I think the PHB would probably baloon out of control if every rule was interrupted by a sample-of-play vignette (like the type you see in Magic: The Gathering rule handouts), but these three would certainly be on my short list of pages to slap a sidebar onto if I were in charge of editing and layout of a 6E Player's Handbook.
Then again, look at the confusion that's caused in PHB Chapter 9 from free object interactions being explained multiple times in multiple sections in multiple ways, or the problem with describing "vision/obscurement/darkness" vs. "hiding" vs. "blindness" vs. being "unseen" in so many different ways. Redundancy is only helpful when it's done consistently and you're actually driving home key terms, rather than just talking about the same subject long enough to create enough rope to hang yourself.
From the stat block: "Maul. Melee Weapon Attack: your spell attack modifier to hit, ..."
Just in case this is mot clear enough, "spell attack modifier" is not the same as "spellcasting ability modifier," it is "spellcasting ability modifier" plus proficiency bonus.
From the stat block: "Maul. Melee Weapon Attack: your spell attack modifier to hit, ..."
Just in case this is mot clear enough, "spell attack modifier" is not the same as "spellcasting ability modifier," it is "spellcasting ability modifier" plus proficiency bonus.
Which is a mistake I made before while not reading closely. Yeah :(
From the stat block: "Maul. Melee Weapon Attack: your spell attack modifier to hit, ..."
Just in case this is mot clear enough, "spell attack modifier" is not the same as "spellcasting ability modifier," it is "spellcasting ability modifier" plus proficiency bonus.
Which is a mistake I made before while not reading closely. Yeah :(
And it isn't stated explicitly, but I assume that means your Ranger spell attack modifier.
And it isn't stated explicitly, but I assume that means your Ranger spell attack modifier.
Presumably, if you multiclass and hence have multiple spell attack modifiers, you can argue with your GM that you should be able to take your highest. The only part of the Primal Companion not deeply compatible with multiclassing is its hit points, so I don't think it's necessarily clear they intended to lock in which spell attack modifier they meant.
Presumably, if you multiclass and hence have multiple spell attack modifiers, you can argue with your GM that you should be able to take your highest. The only part of the Primal Companion not deeply compatible with multiclassing is its hit points, so I don't think it's necessarily clear they intended to lock in which spell attack modifier they meant.
If you take this position, pet classes become very desirable splashes. I think the intent is pretty clear that you look within a class for any class-specific modifiers referenced in your subclass features... but hey, if your DM goes for it, that could be a fun buff to give a multiclass character.
In Tasha's only the cleric and ranger have this: "If you take a feature that replaces another feature, you gain no benefit from the replaced one and don't qualify for anything in the game that requires it."
The order cleric has a strange little interaction with this. And the oath of the crown (SCAG) doesn't have the level 18 aura bump as most paladins do, for precedent in regards to the primal companion NOT getting features at levels 7, 11, and 15, which is the side of that argument I'm currently on.
The order cleric has a strange little interaction with this. And the oath of the crown (SCAG) doesn't have the level 18 aura bump as most paladins do, for precedent in regards to the primal companion NOT getting features at levels 7, 11, and 15, which is the side of that argument I'm currently on.
Is the "strange little interaction" that Order's Wrath does nothing if you've swapped Divine Strike for Blessed Strikes as your level 8 feature? Yeah, Order Clerics probably don't want to use the Blessed Strikes option if they care about Order's Wrath. But, really, Order Clerics are far better as a back row buffer who uses cantrips than a melee tank, so its debatable how much utility there is for building for Order's Wrath in the first place.
A baseline fighter with a greatsword does about 39 damage a round. I don’t think a ranger should be doing 55 to 62 damage a round. No other ranger subclass comes even close to that.
Gloom with a Greatsword in round 1:
2d6 + 1d6 + 6
2d6 + 1d6 + 6
2d6 + 1d6 + 6 +1d8
= 54
Any 11th-level ranger with, say 8 or 10 enemies in a 60ft cone can inflict >100pts of damage with conjure barrage. Conjure animals, another 3rd-level ranger spell, famously inflicts massive amounts of damage.
A baseline fighter with a greatsword does about 39 damage a round. I don’t think a ranger should be doing 55 to 62 damage a round. No other ranger subclass comes even close to that.
Gloom with a Greatsword in round 1:
2d6 + 1d6 + 6
2d6 + 1d6 + 6
2d6 + 1d6 + 6 +1d8
= 54
Any 11th-level ranger with, say 8 or 10 enemies in a 60ft cone can inflict >100pts of damage with conjure barrage. Conjure animals, another 3rd-level ranger spell, famously inflicts massive amounts of damage.
That’s a single turn, perfect setup, using resources. Very different.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Depending on which side of the RAI you come down on both the multiple commands and “beast companion” problems, a DM could probably houserule language to resolve both issues in 5 or 10 minutes of thought. I don’t think it really needs any more revision/redesign overall as a subclass at this point, just some errata or clear DM rulings.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Doesn’t this thread point out the problem with “WotC just needs to fix it”?
We can’t even agree on what “it” is. We have fundamental differences of opinion on the basic way to read the rules. How do you fix something when reasonable people see it so differently and no one seems to want to change their minds.
Rules written in plain language can only get you so far. It would be nice if WotC wrote up some examples of play so that everyone could look at them and be able to see where their understanding of the rules doesn’t mesh with what they intended. WotC seems to be loath to clarify what was intended and maybe each of us needs to come up with a solution that works for themselves.
Some things in the game just can't be calculated or quantified the same way RAW damage output from a "simple" class can be. Many things in the game require a high level of respect, trust, and communication between player and DM. Picking any of these things puts part of your gameplay directly in the hands of the DM, and many players hate that. The ranger in general, the beast master subclass from the PHB, illusion magic, scrying magic, overland travel, social encounters, exploration, hiding and stealth, and the like. All of this is open to HUGE interpretation and adjudication by the DM. Many players don't like this kind of game, won't play this kind of game, dismiss this kind of game, and put others down for this type of game.
I guess that's true... but there's also certain rules and classes that WotC knows are going to be an issue, every edition. Animal Companions, Wild Shape, and Polymorph have been hot topics for debate for over 30 years at this point, and the space that they're given in the PHB compared to other features and spells demonstrates that WotC knew they'd continue to be in 5E. I think the PHB would probably baloon out of control if every rule was interrupted by a sample-of-play vignette (like the type you see in Magic: The Gathering rule handouts), but these three would certainly be on my short list of pages to slap a sidebar onto if I were in charge of editing and layout of a 6E Player's Handbook.
Then again, look at the confusion that's caused in PHB Chapter 9 from free object interactions being explained multiple times in multiple sections in multiple ways, or the problem with describing "vision/obscurement/darkness" vs. "hiding" vs. "blindness" vs. being "unseen" in so many different ways. Redundancy is only helpful when it's done consistently and you're actually driving home key terms, rather than just talking about the same subject long enough to create enough rope to hang yourself.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The primal Companion Maul attack gets wisdom modifer and PB or just wisdom modifer ?
From the stat block: "Maul. Melee Weapon Attack: your spell attack modifier to hit, ..."
Just in case this is mot clear enough, "spell attack modifier" is not the same as "spellcasting ability modifier," it is "spellcasting ability modifier" plus proficiency bonus.
Which is a mistake I made before while not reading closely. Yeah :(
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Spellcasting modifier to hit.
Die + Beast’s Str./Dex. Modifier + Prof. Bonus for damage.
Makes super sense. 🙄
Not exactly....
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
And it isn't stated explicitly, but I assume that means your Ranger spell attack modifier.
Presumably, if you multiclass and hence have multiple spell attack modifiers, you can argue with your GM that you should be able to take your highest. The only part of the Primal Companion not deeply compatible with multiclassing is its hit points, so I don't think it's necessarily clear they intended to lock in which spell attack modifier they meant.
If you take this position, pet classes become very desirable splashes. I think the intent is pretty clear that you look within a class for any class-specific modifiers referenced in your subclass features... but hey, if your DM goes for it, that could be a fun buff to give a multiclass character.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Ignore this.
Daga Kotowaru.
In Tasha's only the cleric and ranger have this: "If you take a feature that replaces another feature, you gain no benefit from the replaced one and don't qualify for anything in the game that requires it."
The order cleric has a strange little interaction with this. And the oath of the crown (SCAG) doesn't have the level 18 aura bump as most paladins do, for precedent in regards to the primal companion NOT getting features at levels 7, 11, and 15, which is the side of that argument I'm currently on.
Is the "strange little interaction" that Order's Wrath does nothing if you've swapped Divine Strike for Blessed Strikes as your level 8 feature? Yeah, Order Clerics probably don't want to use the Blessed Strikes option if they care about Order's Wrath. But, really, Order Clerics are far better as a back row buffer who uses cantrips than a melee tank, so its debatable how much utility there is for building for Order's Wrath in the first place.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I don’t disagree with that at all. It is noteworthy, however.
Gloom with a Greatsword in round 1:
2d6 + 1d6 + 6
2d6 + 1d6 + 6
2d6 + 1d6 + 6 +1d8
= 54
Any 11th-level ranger with, say 8 or 10 enemies in a 60ft cone can inflict >100pts of damage with conjure barrage. Conjure animals, another 3rd-level ranger spell, famously inflicts massive amounts of damage.
That’s a single turn, perfect setup, using resources. Very different.