Ranger Tweaks

[Doomchild]

How would things balance out if Rangers got the Beastmaster path in its entirety from 1st level (not all at once, just with the same features unlocked at the same levels, but they get the pet at 1st level) and the capstone as an initial part of Favored Enemy (not something to wait 19 levels for)? A new subclass would need to be designed to replace the beastmaster and a new capstone, but would this unbalance things too far in the Ranger's favor compared to Paladins, for example?

[Ghost Nappa]

"On your turn, you can verbally command the beast where to move (no action required by you). You can use your bonus action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash..."


Adding that one little word would make such a difference.

[Objulen]

How would things balance out if Rangers got the Beastmaster path in its entirety from 1st level (not all at once, just with the same features unlocked at the same levels, but they get the pet at 1st level) and the capstone as an initial part of Favored Enemy (not something to wait 19 levels for)? A new subclass would need to be designed to replace the beastmaster and a new capstone, but would this unbalance things too far in the Ranger's favor compared to Paladins, for example?

The choice of companion is an important question. It takes a Ranger's action to trigger it's attack, so unless it's combat stats + the Ranger's Proficiency bonus are noticeably better than the Ranger's, it's not going to be very different different in terms of damage. The HP and AC + Proficiency bonus would be something else to consider for a very low level party, as it may be a better tank than expected.

At a glance, I'm not seeing many offensive melee or buff spells that would make a beast companion better, so letting the ranger cast her/his spell on both of them at once should be ok. I'd double check the list for any trouble children, but I'm there's a distinct possibility that Share Spells may need to extend to buff spells cast on the Ranger to the animal companion, unless the latter is already significantly better than the standard Barbarian or Fighter, for the Ranger to stay competitive, resource-wise.

[Objulen]

"On your turn, you can verbally command the beast where to move (no action required by you). You can use your bonus action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash..."


Adding that one little word would make such a difference.

That's going to make it much more powerful at lower levels than other melee classes who can functionally only take one attack or are limited in how often they can use bonus actions for more attacks.

[Doomchild]

Yeah, I'm not talking about changing how the beastmaster stuff works at all, just giving it to the Ranger in addition to the Hunter subclass (or some other subclass I write to replace the beastmaster). Would it be overpowering?

[Eslin]

It's ok, but I'd consider taking it a different route - give them the ability to command the beast as a bonus action and increase the beast's CR as it level or improve its scaling.

Your method works fine, just keep the beast getting a second attack where it is and give every other ability to ranger at first level.

[archaeo]

Yeah, I'm not talking about changing how the beastmaster stuff works at all, just giving it to the Ranger in addition to the Hunter subclass (or some other subclass I write to replace the beastmaster). Would it be overpowering?

Probably, yes. At low levels, it would be fine; all the Beast Master gives up, until level 7, is one of the Hunter's Prey features, and an extra 1d8 isn't going to be a big deal. But after level 7, when the pet can be used with bonus actions, it's going to start getting dicey, and by level 15, it would probably be outright better than a lot of the other martial options, especially late in the adventuring day.

Used cleverly, pets can be extremely potent; unlike the Battle Master, at level 5, you can make an attempt to knock an enemy prone or grapple it every turn with decent damage. Before that, you'll be leaning a bit on the other Ranger abilities, unless you decide to do a Halfling Ranger, which, especially when paired with Mounted Combatant at level 4, turns you into a ridiculous flying sexy god of war for the low price of 60 gp for a saddle made for vultures (or, you know, some equivalent bird, like a stork or a condor or what have you).

[Person_Man]

Yeah, I'm not talking about changing how the beastmaster stuff works at all, just giving it to the Ranger in addition to the Hunter subclass (or some other subclass I write to replace the beastmaster). Would it be overpowering?

I think the primary problem would be one of pacing. I'm away from books at the moment, but my memory is that it gets no combat abilities at 1st level, is basically fine from 2nd-5thish level (as long as nothing breaks your Hunter's Mark Concentration, which is a big if), and then after that there's really not much of a reason to stick with Ranger.

Giving the Ranger Beastmaster + Hunter would be fine in terms of balance, but the pacing would be even worse, since it would gain very large bonuses at subclass levels and garbage at most other levels.

Also, I think that just giving the Ranger more damage would be a design mistake. The real issue is that there Ranger lacks a signature class ability that is really worth taking levels of Ranger to get.

If the Ranger is the pet class, then its Animal Companion needs to be better/different then a Warlock's Familiar or a full caster's Conjure or a Paladin's Find Steed. And it needs to grant a benefit that not just "more attacks sooner." I think that the 4E Shaman class (4E PHBII?) might be worth rereading

If the Ranger is the archery class, then it needs a series of class abilities that legitimately make it the best archer. And again, whatever "best" means, it can't be more damage then an Assassin Rogue archer or Fighter or Eldritch Blast Warlock. There needs to be some sort of effect or other game mechanic that makes it unique or interesting. The archery spells are cool. But they have very limited uses per day compared to full casters, and can be cherry picked by the Rogue.

[Ghost Nappa]

That's going to make it much more powerful at lower levels than other melee classes who can functionally only take one attack or are limited in how often they can use bonus actions for more attacks.

I never said it was a good balance decision, just that it would make a difference.

You could very easily introduce a "ranger point" system like the Sorcerer or Monk gets and allow them to use normal action stuff as bonus action stuff so long as they have those points.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

The thing with beastmaster is the later subclass features mostly roll in features that other classes with companions have had for a long while. Exceptional Training (lvl 7) essentially adds in features from "Find Familiar", a lvl 1 wizard spell, and Share Spells (lvl 15) adds in elements from "Find Steed" which the paladin gets at lvl 5.

So my baseline tweaks would roll E. Training into the lvl 3 features, move Share Spells to lvl 5 and scale the range (5ft, 10ft, 15ft ... 30ft, every 2-5 lvls).

While this isn't elegant, it seems rather strange that the pet specialist is getting features 6 to 10 levels later than other classes.

This leaves holes to be filled in the later levels. Perhaps at lvl 7 the beast can attack independently, or will act without a command, following a training routine (a basic conditional AI to be worked out with the DM, i.e. me, like those seen on the monsters in the recent D&D boardgames). You could even work it out that more intelligent companions have multiple routines or more complex routines.

Bestial Fury (lvl 11) remains largely unchanged, the companion gets a second attack.

No ideas yet as to what to put at lvl 15 to replace Share Spells.

[Person_Man]

I never said it was a good balance decision, just that it would make a difference.

You could very easily introduce a "ranger point" system like the Sorcerer or Monk gets and allow them to use normal action stuff as bonus action stuff so long as they have those points.

That would work, though it might be a bit laborious to write out and track.

Another option would be to move Fighting Style to first level, and then change the Ranger's spellcasting to match the Warlock's Pact Magic. You get just 1-4 spells, from the Ranger spell list. But they are always cast out of the highest spell slot you are capable of casting (up to 5th level), and are restored with a Short Rest.

I think this might create one or two dead levels at high levels, when the Ranger previously got 4th or 5th level spell slots. (Which he'd now be getting much sooner. These could be filled in with Ability Score Increases/Feats, or with a small number of high level spells (like the Warlock) selected from the Druid spell list, or you could give the Beastmaster a superior high level Animal Companion (just give an empathic connection to your companion so it follows your direction without needing any action, and/or giving it a higher CR) and give the Hunter some other actually useful bonuses (Advantage on Perception, Advantage on Initiative, whatever).

[Doomchild]

Alright, so how about we just bake in the Hunter stuff instead, and have Ranger be the only class that chooses a "subclass" at 1st level, letting him choose between Beastmaster (now with tweaks) and some new subclass (or two)? Since I agree having one of his subclasses be "damage stuff" is pretty lazy and uninspired. The subclasses should be fun and unique, not nearly required functionality boosts.

Any ideas for other Ranger subclasses?

[Merc_Kilsek]

Now that I got a fair bit of experience under my belt with this edition I've been considering expanding the proficiency bonus to allow a flat damage reduction to the animal. Easy to keep track of much like the AC/Hit/Damage/etc the Beast Master offers their animal. It scales as you level up without making the animal to complex and powerful with custom house rules.

On a side note: When a ranger commands (standard action at the lower levels) to make the animal attack it continues to do the same action round after round (so long as it makes sense). i.e. Ordering the panther to attack the Hobgoblin Chief it will continue to do so each round unless ordered otherwise. I've also let my player's ranger's animal to react to being harmed and attack it's attacker on that players turn if they want to without having to do a command.

[archaeo]

Also, I think that just giving the Ranger more damage would be a design mistake. The real issue is that there Ranger lacks a signature class ability that is really worth taking levels of Ranger to get.

Well, first off, the Ranger holds all the fluff for wilderness warriors; you can quibble over whether that deserves mechanical distinction, but this is D&D, and sacred cows must live on. The class, as it exists now, offers two options:

Hunter Rangers are just a Wis-based EK, more or less, with a collection of subclass features meant to give you a bunch of at-will powers in contrast with your daily spells. It has a certain 4e-light approach that could go over well; I bet the features, added together, can make for a pretty potent melee or ranged guy. It's a tight, focused class/subclass that will appeal to some players, I'm guessing.

Beast Master Rangers are either a) the best way to get a mount, if you're a Halfling, or b) a bunch of extra attacks that can apply conditions/have bonuses without much cost. They end up having the hardiest familiar, making it the only way to have actual pets in combat that stick around without concentration, and that's a niche the game should fill. My only real complaint is that Share Spells doesn't have many uses given the Ranger's spell selection. They're otherwise a competent melee class that can project force pretty widely in a single turn.


If the Ranger is the pet class, then its Animal Companion needs to be better/different then a Warlock's Familiar or a full caster's Conjure or a Paladin's Find Steed. And it needs to grant a benefit that not just "more attacks sooner." I think that the 4E Shaman class (4E PHBII?) might be worth rereading

It's probably worth pointing out that, of all the possibilities for expansion, the selection of CR 1/4 beasts to choose from is only going to get bigger. Maybe once the DMG comes out and explains how to make monsters properly, it'll be easy to build custom beasts, too. I mean, Acolytes are CR 1/4, as are Pixies. We also don't know if there will be any pet-related magic items.

Maybe Beast Master will get errata'd though; it really wouldn't destroy the game if it was given some buffs. At level 15, for example, you could give up permanent spell slots to get more powerful beasts, or more of them, or something. I'm certainly one of the few defenders of the subclass I see online. :smallsmile:


If the Ranger is the archery class, then it needs a series of class abilities that legitimately make it the best archer. And again, whatever "best" means, it can't be more damage then an Assassin Rogue archer or Fighter or Eldritch Blast Warlock. There needs to be some sort of effect or other game mechanic that makes it unique or interesting.

It seems like it can be the archery class, if you take the right Hunter features and Ranger spells. It's a class that, I think, is uniquely designed for flexibility. It has a spell list that can fill in a lot of utility, class features that respond to the campaign, and attack styles that let you focus either on DPR or tying up enemies. You also have lots of reasons to focus Dex, which will make you pretty sneaky and a fantastic scout.

But we'll see how it plays as the game gets going on more tables.

[Easy_Lee]

That's going to make it much more powerful at lower levels than other melee classes who can functionally only take one attack or are limited in how often they can use bonus actions for more attacks.

Monks, polearm masters, crossbow experts, and rogues don't have trouble coming up with bonus actions. Considering how squishy the companion is, I'd be fine with BM rangers having a small advantage at these levels, personally.