Revised ranger beast progression class/character levels?

[Oozelord]

So the beast companion uses the characters proficiency for a bunch of things. But is its hitdice now based on character level as well?

Say a LVL 16 fighter decides to multiclass as a revised ranger beastconclave LVL 4. The beast would then gain 17 hitdice and 14 extra attribute points to spend? ( the beast gains some extra attribute points from the fighter).

And I presume it no longer takes any actions to command the beast to do stuff. Is that correct as well?

[EvilAnagram]

So the beast companion uses the characters proficiency for a bunch of things. But is its hitdice now based on character level as well?

Say a LVL 16 fighter decides to multiclass as a revised ranger beastconclave LVL 4. The beast would then gain 17 hitdice and 14 extra attribute points to spend? ( the beast gains some extra attribute points from the fighter).

And I presume it no longer takes any actions to command the beast to do stuff. Is that correct as well?

Class features only improve when you gain levels in that class. If you are Fighter12/Ranger3, your companion gets three hut dice and no ASI.

The only action of yours the companion uses is your reaction when it attacks on your turn.

[Koren]

I thought the companion used its own reaction? Since it's still a separate entity with its own turns?

[EvilAnagram]

I thought the companion used its own reaction? Since it's still a separate entity with its own turns?
On a reread, you are correct.

[Oozelord]

Class features only improve when you gain levels in that class. If you are Fighter12/Ranger3, your companion gets three hut dice and no ASI.


Hmm I would argue that ASI from fighter levels would also grant the beast ASI increases. The section regarding the companions bond starts out with talking about how the beasts abilities are partly derived from the hero's level. It then goes on with proficiency bonus on various stuff. (In this regard when talking about levels they clearly mean character levels and not class levels ).
Next up they talk about hit dice increases. Personally I think it's still regarding character levels, but I can see your stance of them meaning class levels.
Lastly they talk about ASI again I would think any ASI from any class would do, but I can also see the other side thinking only ranger ASI would qualify.

So to sum up. Companions bond is at least partly derived from character levels. I would argue that it's 100% character levels while I suppose others would say it's 33% or 67% ranger specific levels instead.

And regarding the second part of my question. A revised rangers companion then has a separate initiative, move, action and reaction? And they can utilise them all, without having the ranger use any of his own?

[Sigreid]

And regarding the second part of my question. A revised rangers companion then has a separate initiative, move, action and reaction? And they can utilise them all, without having the ranger use any of his own?

Yes. In exchange for making your critter feel more like a critter and less like a puppet, they took your extra attack. :)

[Desteplo]

UA is based on the class in a white room. They don't make them with multiclassing in mind. Ask your DM. but I'm most cases it's a ranger feature. Needs ranger levels.

[EvilAnagram]

Hmm I would argue that ASI from fighter levels would also grant the beast ASI increases. The section regarding the companions bond starts out with talking about how the beasts abilities are partly derived from the hero's level. It then goes on with proficiency bonus on various stuff. (In this regard when talking about levels they clearly mean character levels and not class levels ).
The UA is not designed with multiclass balance in mind, and there is no indication that by level they mean anything other than Ranger level. Until now, the only thing that increases steadily with any levels is proficiency, and I don't know why a Ranger class feature would be any different in that regard.



So to sum up. Companions bond is at least partly derived from character levels. I would argue that it's 100% character levels while I suppose others would say it's 33% or 67% ranger specific levels instead.
Again, it's specifically designed without multiclass considerations in mind, and you are the first person I've seen argue that the beast companion advances at all with anything other than ranger levels and proficiency.


And regarding the second part of my question. A revised rangers companion then has a separate initiative, move, action and reaction? And they can utilise them all, without having the ranger use any of his own?

Yes.

[Oozelord]

Well crud. Then it's not as awesome to multiclass as I'd hoped. Without those extra hit points it's not worth it for my character.
Well thanks for your replies.

Personally I think the UA classes should be designed with multiclassing in mind - mostly for the feedback.

[Koren]

I always thought the general rule was that class features only level up with class levels, not player (character?) levels. That still makes the ASI thing arguable but since nothing straight up says Player Level in there that would mean it's all based on Ranger levels specifically, right? Rules apply unless explicitly stated otherwise.

[Arkhios]

Personally I think the UA classes should be designed with multiclassing in mind - mostly for the feedback.

I tend to disagree with this, because if a (sub)class is too strong on its own even before multiclassing, combing through feedback regarding both single class and multiclass issues adds extra layer of complexity.

I agree that both should have public playtests but separately. First, get the core (how much oomph any given feature should have etc.) together, and only after that, check for any possible multiclass issues.

[Oozelord]

I tend to disagree with this, because if a (sub)class is too strong on its own even before multiclassing, combing through feedback regarding both single class and multiclass issues adds extra layer of complexity.

I agree that both should have public playtests but separately. First, get the core (how much oomph any given feature should have etc.) together, and only after that, check for any possible multiclass issues.

True. But I think the revised ranger kinda muddied the waters a bit concerning if he has already been made with multiclassing in mind - or if the playtesters are meant to ignore multiclassing for now.

For instance the mystic specifically says in the beginning of the document that it hasn't yet been designed with multiclassing in mind. ( it actually goes so far to say that it's common for UA to not have multiclassing in mind).

Yet this info box is oddly lacking in the multiclass restriction in the revised ranger document. This could be because as it's not a true *new* class like the mystic. But *merely * a revised version of an already known class. Thus it's eligible for multiclassing, as it's just a ranger 1.2.

... or they forgot to put the no multiclassing part in there.

I presume most people here would allow multiclassing of various other things freely. Like stormborn sorcerors etc. ?

I can see in the Strictly RAW thread that some other people also find some of the beast levelling tricky (q14 and q31).

Out of curiosity how would you guys rule it?
Say the level 3 ranger suddenly decided to take 4 fighter levels. Would the beast then gain attribute increases, proficiency bonus increase and 4 hd?
Or just the attribute increases and prof bonus ?
Or just the proficiency increase?

I would definitely go with both prof bonus and the attribute boost. But I'm not sure about the hd. Without the hd increase I feel the beast would be a liability for the character ( having a 10 hp companion on a ranger 3 druid 17 kinda sucks).

But the again it might be too powerful with the extra hd? A ranger 3 rogue 17 would suddenly have a very reliable partner

[Beelzebubba]

UA classes are not balanced for multiclassing.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/791048635815301120

Again, to back up Arkhlos, when you submit anything get feedback, you reduce the number of variables to the ones you absolutely need. This is a basic concept in research.

They need to know if the thing works, which parts work best, which parts people love, and then when they tweak it to the final balance, then multiclassing becomes an issue.

If the original class isn't working, then they saved time.

[Oozelord]

Yeah I can get behind that.
But if they can't use UA to test the waters for multiclass shenanigans how will they do it then? In house?- because multiclassing have a whole lot more pitfalls than a whiteroom single class. It would be more effective to get the community working on that part.

It seems only natural that when a class is deemed "good" by the community that it would go through a second proofing, testing another variable - for instance multiclassing.

It would be nice if they wrote their goals into the document. For instance they explicitly wrote that the mystic hasn't been geared to multiclassing yet. This meant that players already knew not to waste time to offer feedback on that part yet.

Later when the mystic is closer to getting an official entry they could put him in UA again, this time with an info box explaining that he is mulitclassable.
That would also be some valid research approach, as it would lessen respondee errors.

But how would you rule the revised ranger? Disallow him multiclassing? Or that it's all class levels, except prof bonus?

[Beelzebubba]

But how would you rule the revised ranger? Disallow him multiclassing? Or that it's all class levels, except prof bonus?

If anyone ran the UA Ranger, I'd limit it to single class. The first few levels are just SO front-loaded that it would be incredibly overpowered as a dip. I'd rather have us do UA as intended - playtest it and send in feedback.

Worrying about multiclassing early is dumb because you will potentially throw every single bit of it away after the first playtest round. It doesn't carry over, it's a small tweak you do after the vast majority of the work is done. Doing it now only wastes time.

This is a basic thing in design. It's true in software (where I work), in print design (where I worked a while ago), and everything else. You finish the car before you put on shiny hubcaps. You build the house before you lay down carpet. You write a good article before choosing the font. Etcetera.

[Koren]

I wonder if maybe the first few levels were so loaded for the sake of understanding if the changes were positive. Maybe they want to know whether they will keep these features first, and then balance WHERE they appear next. Putting everything in the first few levels means play testers will definitely notice the difference.

To back this up, I hear frequently not to expect to see level 20, as campaigns rarely go that far. Many say their campaigns are only going as high as lv 15 or 10. I think I've seen a bunch topping out at 7-9. Hard to plan a good level cap ability when nobody SEES the level cap.

Conversely maybe they thought the Ranger chassis was so underpowered that they just had to stuff it full of goodies. Who knows.

[Oozelord]

I wonder if maybe the first few levels were so loaded for the sake of understanding if the changes were positive. Maybe they want to know whether they will keep these features first, and then balance WHERE they appear next. Putting everything in the first few levels means play testers will definitely notice the difference.

Yeah the first three level are definitely loaded with goodies. Most of them highly usable for many other characters as well, than just pure rangers- even at high levels.

Ok. Thank you all for your feedback. We will hold on multiclassing the revised ranger for now. Instead we will look at case-by-case which UA is deemed for for multiclassing, as some of them are surely looking ok up for it, without throwing balance or intent out the wizards tower.

On a side note. I do hope the finished ranger will have his beast level at character levels and not class levels. Otherwise if a high level hero would want a pet he would be better of with a single class/feat to get a familiar than a beast companion, in just about all cases.

Horde breaker is still a valuable thing to a 3 ranger/17 barbarian. An 11 hp mule companion not so much;)

[Arcangel4774]

While not strictly related, the rules for adventure league help ti understand some of the balancing strategy. the main reason behind core+1 In terms of AL, is that it takes away some of the work in balancing that allowing multiclassing between books may bring out. In this manner everything is balanced against itself and the core books, not necessarily against anything else.

[Easy_Lee]

Horde breaker is still a valuable thing to a 3 ranger/17 barbarian. An 11 hp mule companion not so much;)

What about a halfling 5 Beast Conclave ranger / 11 fighter with mounted combatant and TWF? That's six attacks per round, nine on an action surge, counting the wolf, and the wolf's proficiency scales with the player's.

It's hardly broken by the time you're that high of level, when monks can do fifteen stunning strikes per short rest and illusion wizards can create partially real illusions that last a full minute. But it's still something to think about.

[Oozelord]

What about a halfling 5 Beast Conclave ranger / 11 fighter with mounted combatant and TWF? That's six attacks per round, nine on an action surge, counting the wolf, and the wolf's proficiency scales with the player's.

It's hardly broken by the time you're that high of level, when monks can do fifteen stunning strikes per short rest and illusion wizards can create partially real illusions that last a full minute. But it's still something to think about.

Certainly it would not be weak I think.
But without scaling hd, the wolf would have around 22hps. This is largely offset by the mounted combat feat. Unless it's hit by some nasty 5-6th level area spell. But I think the power here comes mostly from the feat. A medium sized adventurer would have a harder time protecting his 22 hp companion at lvl 14. It would be easier for him to have a familiar, and resummon it a bit more often.

[Easy_Lee]

Certainly it would not be weak I think.
But without scaling hd, the wolf would have around 22hps. This is largely offset by the mounted combat feat. Unless it's hit by some nasty 5-6th level area spell. But I think the power here comes mostly from the feat. A medium sized adventurer would have a harder time protecting his 22 hp companion at lvl 14. It would be easier for him to have a familiar, and resummon it a bit more often.

By my reading of the beast conclave feature, the wolf gains hit die and levels as a player does. It should have 5.5 hp per level if rolling or 6 if taking a 5 on its D8. Assuming the latter, wolf 5 should have 29-30 HP, or 27.5 otherwise. Unless it has 2D8+2 hp when you get it and doesn't gain its third hit die until you hit level 4.

But this is a pretty minor point. It isn't something I would do just because the beast will get knocked out by one stray breath attack with HP that low. You'll be resurrecting it all the time.