Rangers should get Find steed, fight me!

[Witty Username]

Why in the name of all that is holy do Rangers not get find steed? Apparently having a horse is defined as beyond their power.
They can talk to and charm animals, form deep spiritual bonds with animals, and are inherently tied to nature. Unless it is horses, horses are exempt. This is the dumbest. Thank you for your time.

[OldTrees1]

Remember bounded accuracy in 5E means minionmancy is harder to balance than normal.

Rangers get multiple ways to get animals (including horses):
Animal Handling (skill)
Animal Friendship
Beastmaster (subclass)
Animal Messenger
Conjure Animals
Conjure Woodland Beings

Also remember than Find Familiar and Find Steed are class features disguised as spells because they have an indefinite duration. Oh and 100ft/1mile Telepathy is quite valuable.


So when the designers were looking at Ranger, it is reasonable to see them conclude that instead of Rangers getting Find Steed, they would make a more explicit class feature in Beastmaster. There were multiple valid ways of handling that.


That said, I have not tested ranger enough to know what, if any, buffs I would given them in L1-10.

[Dork_Forge]

What Oldtrees says ahs a lot of merit, I think the actual answer though is more simple: Paladins are archetypically the holy knight on the shining steed, Ranger's are the Aragonesque woodsman/master of their terrain. So the Paladin gets a spell that allows them to complete that archetype whilst Rangers get other spells and abilities to fulfill their archetype.

[Warder]

I'll fight you and say that Find Steed should be a paladin class feature rather than a spell so no other classes can get it! Critical hit!

[Yakk]

I think that Rangers need a rebuild, but so do many people.

Find Steed isn't needed. I agree they should have a class feature more like it, and not be tied to being a Beastmaster to get it.

My current thoughts are that rangers become sort of "nature warlocks". They have a bond with nature from which they draw their powers.

At level 1 you get a bond with a primal spirit (nature spirit). It can take more than 1 form.

Pack: Your spirit takes the form of an animal companion.
Hunt: Your spirit helps you hunt, granting HM boosts and similar stuff.
Beast: Your spirit can transform you, giving you pseudo-wild-shape abilities.

The Beastmaster subclass would require Primal Spirit(Beast), and would boost it further (as the "power budget" of the primal spirits isn't as large as itself plus a subclass).

I'd leave existing subclasses the same (except BM), and rework some of the core Ranger progression.

[Witty Username]

Remember bounded accuracy in 5E means minionmancy is harder to balance than normal.

Rangers get multiple ways to get animals (including horses):
Animal Handling (skill)
Animal Friendship
Beastmaster (subclass)
Animal Messenger
Conjure Animals
Conjure Woodland Beings

Also remember than Find Familiar and Find Steed are class features disguised as spells because they have an indefinite duration. Oh and 100ft/1mile Telepathy is quite valuable.


So when the designers were looking at Ranger, it is reasonable to see them conclude that instead of Rangers getting Find Steed, they would make a more explicit class feature in Beastmaster. There were multiple valid ways of handling that.


That said, I have not tested ranger enough to know what, if any, buffs I would given them in L1-10.

I recognize the spells that can get horses, kinda, they are subject to DM fiat a bit, that whole you don't get to pick the creatures thing. I will grant summoning 8 horses is more party friendly, if your DM lets you. Also, a beastmaster using a beast as a mount is disappointing because beastmaster mounts don't get their own actions, and the size limit requires you to be a small race, like halfling, gnome, goblin, or custom lineage.

In terms of power, I thought rangers are generally regarded as one of the weaker classes, if not the weakest. As well as having a mount doesn't seem like the biggest thing in terms of power level. In terms of scouting I am not sure, is that a regular use of find steed?

In terms of class identity, I feel like paladin is already pretty solid on that front. I may not say it too their face because crit smites hurt quite a lot :smallwink:. But with divine smite, aura of protection, unique channel divinities, and some really nice combat spells Paladin is pretty fine both thematically and mechanically. And I am not saying that rangers should get find steed instead of paladins I'm just saying they should get find steed.

[OldTrees1]

I recognize the spells that can get horses, kinda, they are subject to DM fiat a bit, that whole you don't get to pick the creatures thing. I will grant summoning 8 horses is more party friendly, if your DM lets you. Also, a beastmaster using a beast as a mount is disappointing because beastmaster mounts don't get their own actions, and the size limit requires you to be a small race, like halfling, gnome, goblin, or custom lineage.

In terms of power, I thought rangers are generally regarded as one of the weaker classes, if not the weakest. As well as having a mount doesn't seem like the biggest thing in terms of power level. In terms of scouting I am not sure, is that a regular use of find steed?

In terms of class identity, I feel like paladin is already pretty solid on that front. I may not say it too their face because crit smites hurt quite a lot :smallwink:. But with divine smite, aura of protection, unique channel divinities, and some really nice combat spells Paladin is pretty fine both thematically and mechanically. And I am not saying that rangers should get find steed instead of paladins I'm just saying they should get find steed.

I expected your "having a horse is beyond their power" comment was hyperbole. I pointed out ways to get a horse and I am glad I was right that you knew about those ways.

There is a difference between a mount (Handle Animal + Horse) and Find Steed. Find Steed gives you an immortal (resummon the same spirit if it "dies") telepathic (1 mile) intelligent (Int 6+) companion. Oh and you can duplicate certain spells like Locate Object (that was a huge deal in my current campaign)! So, yeah, the Find Steed spell is regularly used as much more than a mundane mount.

Oh, yes, I found your idea to be quite clear. You were not suggesting taking Find Steed away from Paladin*. I mentioned it as being a "class features disguised as a spell" to indicate just how much benefit the spell provides (see previous paragraph). I did not consider exclusivity (both Paladin and Ranger have Extra Attack).


As for ranger being weaker, yes that is what I hear and I have not tested it sufficiently to know how, or if, I would buff them. I did elaborate on why the designers might have intentionally omitted Find Steed from the ranger list. However intention and implementation are separate. So even if leaving Find Steed off the list is a valid design, that does not mean Ranger's implementation of creature companion(s) is ideal or not.

Another reason I have not reached a conclusion: 5E cannot handle the kind of minionmancy I expect from minionmancers. So my instinctual designs would be OP in that area.



I'll fight you and say that Find Steed should be a paladin class feature rather than a spell so no other classes can get it! Critical hit!
*Is this where I say "Grave Cleric negates Warder's Paladin critical hit against Witty Username's Ranger. It is still a hit, but not a critical smite."?

[Witty Username]

I will cop to the fact that the only reason that I am as frustrated by this is that a riding horse animal companion is one of three things I have asked a DM if I could break a rule for and fixes to the implementation of the beast master are probably about as effective for easing my frustration. But it still looks weird that paladin has little to do with nature or animals and gets a better animal companion then the ranger.

[OldTrees1]

I will cop to the fact that the only reason that I am as frustrated by this is that a riding horse animal companion is one of three things I have asked a DM if I could break a rule for and fixes to the implementation of the beast master are probably about as effective for easing my frustration. But it still looks weird that paladin has little to do with nature or animals and gets a better animal companion then the ranger.

Yes, that is very weird, Paladins are actually known for having a connection to their mount, but that does not explain Beastmaster. It is also one of the reasons people mention when they evaluate Beastmaster so poorly. When I first read it I expected something more comparable to the Hunter subclass but as a growing companion rather than buffing the Ranger directly. Or maybe more like the new Summon Beast (and similar) Ranger spell from Tasha's as examples of scaling.

Alternatively I expected Beastmaster to be a packmaster where their number of companions grew as the leveled. However I already warned you that my instinctual design would tend towards OP when it comes to 5E & minionmancy. I expect a packmaster might have that issue.

[Tanarii]

It would be a good subclass spell for a horse warrior / nomad type subclass.

Just like Vengeance Paladins get Hunters Mark and Ancients Paladins get Ensnaring Strike.

[Kane0]

Sure, why not.

Maybe should have been a note in the DMG to limit PCs to one tagalong per player as a rule of thumb for playability. That way there would be less of an action economy problem with PC + Familiar + Homunculous + Tiny Servant + Mount + Charmed friend + Summon/animate spell or whatever.
More options for what kind of +1 for the PC but still some sort of limit so the party doesnt become a parade.

[stoutstien]

5e has way too many class features wrapped up in spells and spell casting already.

[Tanarii]

5e has way too many class features wrapped up in spells and spell casting already.
It's a feature, not a bug. :smallamused:

Seriously though, I like to think someone on design somewhere in the process thought to themselves : do we want this to have components, be counter-spelled or dispelled, go away in an AMF, be possible to put on other subclass special spell lists, and be available to magical secrets. Yes? Make it a spell. No? Make it a feature.

The 4-elements monk is a good example of a subclass that uses both btw, although it's spells aren't unique.

Of course, just because I'd like to think that doesn't mean it happened. Nor does it mean I agree with each case.

But should a Paladins highly magical summoned mount be subject to AMF? IMO Yes, of course it should.

(Interestingly though it is not subject to Dispel, since Find Steed is instantaneous, and Dispel Magic only ends spells, not all ongoing magical effects or summoned creatures.)

[stoutstien]

It's a feature, not a bug. :smallamused:

Seriously though, I like to think someone on design somewhere in the process thought to themselves : do we want this to have components, be counter-spelled or dispelled, go away in an AMF, be possible to put on other subclass special spell lists, and be available to magical secrets. Yes? Make it a spell. No? Make it a feature.

The 4-elements monk is a good example of a subclass that uses both btw, although it's spells aren't unique.

Of course, just because I'd like to think that doesn't mean it happened. Nor does it mean I agree with each case.

But should a Paladins highly magical summoned mount be subject to AMF? IMO Yes, of course it should.

(Interestingly though it is not subject to Dispel, since Find Steed is instantaneous, and Dispel Magic only ends spells, not all ongoing magical effects or summoned creatures.)

Aye. I think in their quest to simplify the system they overshot the runway. There's plenty of things that you could put into a new category of magical features that are not spells that could spread the wealth a bit.

[Samayu]

But it still looks weird that paladin has little to do with nature or animals and gets a better animal companion then the ranger.

There's little that's natural about the paladin's found steed. It's fey, fiend or celestial, is telepathic, and you can dismiss it (from existence). It's very much supernatural, and that alone should limit it from the ranger's use, in my opinion. Rangers get their loyal steeds the old fashioned way - they befriend them.

Also regarding flavor, I think the image of rangers is a sneaky, outdoorsy hunter type. I don't really picture horses in that idiom.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'll fight you and say that Find Steed should be a paladin class feature rather than a spell so no other classes can get it! Critical hit! My Lore Bard casts suggestion, suggesting that you reconsider and be more reasonable about sharing and playing nice with others. Wisdom save, DC 19. :smallbiggrin:

[Witty Username]

There's little that's natural about the paladin's found steed. It's fey, fiend or celestial, is telepathic, and you can dismiss it (from existence). It's very much supernatural, and that alone should limit it from the ranger's use, in my opinion. Rangers get their loyal steeds the old fashioned way - they befriend them.

Also regarding flavor, I think the image of rangers is a sneaky, outdoorsy hunter type. I don't really picture horses in that idiom.

Rangers get stuff like lightning arrow, conjure fey, and spike growth. I feel like supernatural isn't a problem for them.
Sneaky maybe, but also an explorer, horses fit in with overland travel pretty well.
I don't see why Ranger ought not have find steed on those grounds. Maybe fey only perhaps.

[Falconcry]

Level 15 Drakewarden will get a steed. Sorta.

[Ghost Nappa]

No, I don't think I will.

I'll go the extra step and let Rangers have Find Greater Steed on their spell list as well. They're getting them at the same time as Paladins are because of their half-casting and it makes sense flavor-wise from the perspective of like a Mongol-esque Nomad Bow rider.


Unless there is already a Ranger subclass that has been given that power. Then I might reconsider.

[Snowbluff]

My Lore Bard casts suggestion, suggesting that you reconsider and be more reasonable about sharing and playing nice with others. Wisdom save, DC 19. :smallbiggrin:

I was about to say, my Meatbard very much like having a steed to share bonus HP from spells with.

[Witty Username]

No, I don't think I will.

I'll go the extra step and let Rangers have Find Greater Steed on their spell list as well. They're getting them at the same time as Paladins are because of their half-casting and it makes sense flavor-wise from the perspective of like a Mongol-esque Nomad Bow rider.


Unless there is already a Ranger subclass that has been given that power. Then I might reconsider.

I don't think such a subclass exists, at least in official material. I could see making one, I would probably use the 3.5 wild plains outrider as a reference if I did that.

[Floorlock]

Why in the name of all that is holy do Rangers not get find steed? Apparently having a horse is defined as beyond their power.
They can talk to and charm animals, form deep spiritual bonds with animals, and are inherently tied to nature. Unless it is horses, horses are exempt. This is the dumbest. Thank you for your time.

It feels like a crime that more people aren't jumping on this...either in agreeance or to actually fight you on it. I would like to hear more arguments for or against....especially since I've yet to hear anything particularly conclusive on the "no" side.

See, I've been considering this as an option for quite a bit now, actually...and I'm especially getting ready to pull the trigger on it as I near the start of an upcoming campaign I'm working on with one of my players rocking a Horizon Walker Ranger. I just keep waiting to see the perfect evidence that pulling that trigger is a bad idea.

I've even wondered for some time now why Rangers don't get spells like Find Familiar, either. I've seen some argue in the past that it doesn't make sense from a lore perspective...because Rangers befriend animals as opposed to binding spirits into servitude.
However, that line of thinking doesn't make too much sense to me for a number of reasons.

1. It sounds needlessly malicious. I've never thought of a Wizard's familiar being essentially a slave...which is what that line of thinking seems to nearly imply.
2. Rangers absolutely DO bind spirits to their cause as of spells in the player's handbook such as Conjure Animals and Conjure Woodland beings...both of which summon fey.
3. Even if this was the case...it would seem that there is an attempt to move away from it considering that the current version of Ranger that is playable in the Baldur's Gate 3 Early Access build has the option to obtain the Find Familiar spell.
4. Druids now have the option to summon a familiar as of Tasha's...and they're usually depicted as having even greater reverence for nature than Rangers.

And...even through all of this, a player really just wants their pet to be useful. Even if someone disagreed with the concept of binding a spirit, it would simply be a task of re-fluffling. Because, honestly...what's better than having a hawk pet is having a hawk pet that can essentially never die and through which you can perceive the world through its eyes when it flies.

I feel that all of the same logic applies to Find Steed...and even Find Greater Steed at later levels.

I had considered at one point allowing only the Beast Master Ranger to have access to these spells through the use of a bonus spell list a la Xanathar's and Tasha's. (I've also gone and given past Sorcerer subclasses bonus spells.)

However, I thought that perhaps not every beastmaster would wish to be saddled with 2 extra pets. If they were just naturally on the Ranger's spell list, then they'd have the option to either just go out with a panther to live out their Drizzt fantasies, or take the other spells as well to have their own little gang of beasts.
Additionally, having Find Familiar, Find Steed, and Find Greater Steed on their native spell lists will allow other Rangers to have lesser versions of the Beast Master's shtick without stealing their stuff entirely.
In my player's case...he would particularly like to be a Horizon Walker Ranger for the flavor, but he would also very much appreciate an Owl pet to perch on his shoulder and provide all the benefits of a familiar. Yes...magic initiate is an option, but it's an expensive one...most likely too expensive.

The biggest argument I can think of against all of this is one from a sort of outside approach...which is the fact that there can just be SO many characters in a party with pets, now.
It used to be that Just Wizards and certain Warlocks could get familiars outside of feats.

My upcoming campaign's party will likely have a Horizon Walker Ranger, a Battlesmith Artificer, a Genie Warlock, an Arcana Cleric, and a Conjuration Wizard.

With this ruling, 4 of them can theoretically have a familiar (Artificer with a spellwrought tattoo or something...which is craftable as an infusion, or at least a homunculus), The artificer will have their steel defender, The Ranger will have a steed for themselves, and the wizard will constantly be acting as a summoner with the new Tasha's spells, while the cleric might eventually do the same with summon celestial.

That's a lot of stuff on the battlefield.

In practice, I actually believe that only 3 of them will have familiars...but, that would only be one creature gone. Lol. I'm perfectly fine with allowing this...but, it is a consideration to be made with how many classes in the game get access to pets now.

Personally, however, I feel that its the potential price to pay to insure that the Ranger feels just as cool as the Paladin. Part of the problem with the Ranger seems to be its constant state of being tugged in different directions. Some don't want it to have options like Find Greater Steed simply because it FEELS too bombastic, magical, and in-your-face. However, I think it deserves to be reiterated that Rangers are, in fact, half-casters...and should get just as many potential magical options as their Paladin cousins.
If the problem stems from needing the class to fill the Aragorn roll...well...I just don't feel that it emulates him very well in the first place. Lord of the Rings and D&D are two very different properties with crazy disparities in magic levels. Aragorn's skill set is better represented by some sort of Scout Rogue/ Battle Master Fighter multiclass than with Ranger.
5e Ranger's are clearly magical...with half the progression of Druids. The closest comparison is with Paladins. No one has ever had much to complain about with Paladins in 5e...but, there has been the ever marching Sisyphian task of perfecting rangers for years now.
I feel that raising their magic options, including granting them potentially thematic spells such as find familiar, find steed, and Find Greater Steed, would go a long way towards overall player satisfaction.

Anyways, long rambling concluded to simply say that I agree: Rangers should probably get Find Steed.

[Warder]

It feels like a crime that more people aren't jumping on this...either in agreeance or to actually fight you on it. I would like to hear more arguments for or against....especially since I've yet to hear anything particularly conclusive on the "no" side.

Okay. I don't think anyone should be allowed access to Find Steed other than paladins because it's one of the most iconic paladin abilities throughout more or less all editions of D&D. The flavor of paladins calling a celestial steed to their side as a reward from their deity for their continued piety and service is a very strong one, and it really bothers me that it was turned into a spell for other classes (read: bards) to have.

It's not just me being a grump over changes from legacy either, honest - it's part of a greater issue I have with 5e, in that standardization and normalization of everything has a price that often gets overlooked or drowned out in favor of the benefits said normalization provides. There's no doubt that 5e is a slicker, more streamlined version of the game and probably the best mechanical ruleset it has ever had. But that came with a cost for me - it doesn't invoke the same kind of wonder in me anymore, and bards riding paladin steeds is perhaps the best example of that I can see.

[OldTrees1]

It feels like a crime that more people aren't jumping on this...either in agreeance or to actually fight you on it. I would like to hear more arguments for or against....especially since I've yet to hear anything particularly conclusive on the "no" side.

Did you consider the difference between Find Familiar / Find Steed and other 1st/2nd/4th level spells? Namely that the spells give a permanent benefit for being cast in advance and thus do not take a spell slot? These spells known act like class features (I not talking about class exclusive features) rather than normal spells. If you have the class feature, you get the permanent benefit.

Now you were considering maybe only Beast Master would get Find Steed. I would argue WotC thought the exact same thing, and then converted the known spell into an explicit class feature. I believe the implementation was lacking, but I have to admit having a constant companion is a viable alternative feature to knowing the Find Steed spell.

No, to be fair, this is not exactly the "no" side. There were multiple valid ways of designing the ranger companion. It might make more sense to fix the chosen method rather than just adding class features. Especially since Find Steed is an intelligent telepathic immortal rather than just an animal mount. An ideal world would have Ranger's companion fit them better than the Find Steed spell would.

[Kane0]

I just realized i made a find beast companion spell as a ranger counterpart to find steed, with the beastmaster getting bonuses to the spell and beast.

[Floorlock]

I just realized i made a find beast companion spell as a ranger counterpart to find steed, with the beastmaster getting bonuses to the spell and beast.

Something like this could work...and it's definitely something I've considered implementing as well. That would be a way to implement the sort of situation I was talking about.

Sometimes I've even wondered if there could have been a version of 5e that didn't attach pets to subclasses at all. The new Tasha's Sidekicks have made me wonder how viable of an option taking a feat for a pet would be. I haven't gotten to look over the sidekicks too much, though...I don't know how something like that would work. They'd maybe have to be toned down in power, presumably, to work as a sidekick attached to only one character. But, it would go a long way towards allowing almost any character type to have a pet. There have been many that have clamored for a Druid with a beastmaster style pet as well...and that type of thing could be a theoretical solution, I suppose. It could have also freed up any and all artificers to make a robot pet. Who knows.


I know that Rangers and Druids both have the power to befriend animals that could presumably fight for them...but, I don't typically want to go down that path... because it can potentially lead to druids walking around with an amassed army of permanent wolves. Same way I'm not a really fan of character's just paying an army of hirelings to come with them. Lol. I don't know.

[Kane0]

Just build in some ways for all classes to have pets, and limit each character to one at a time.
Familiars, beasts, summons, constructs, undead, mounts, charmed thralls, employed sidekicks, whatever.

[Necrosnoop110]

There is a difference between a mount (Handle Animal + Horse) and Find Steed. Find Steed gives you an immortal (resummon the same spirit if it "dies") telepathic (1 mile) intelligent (Int 6+) companion. Oh and you can duplicate certain spells like Locate Object (that was a huge deal in my current campaign)! So, yeah, the Find Steed spell is regularly used as much more than a mundane mount.
Just curious, how do you duplicate Locate Object with Find Steed?

[Witty Username]

Now you were considering maybe only Beast Master would get Find Steed. I would argue WotC thought the exact same thing, and then converted the known spell into an explicit class feature. I believe the implementation was lacking, but I have to admit having a constant companion is a viable alternative feature to knowing the Find Steed spell.

We have evidence that WotC did not think that, in fact we have evidence that WotC specifically denied Beast master working like that given that the beast companion is required to be medium size or smaller which excludes most of the find steed options and prevents all medium sized rangers from having a mount companion.
Now we have to ask if WotC did this for balance or theme. If they did this for theme we can simply declare them wrong and move on. As for balance, given find steed is in general terms better than the beast master subclass(all features combined, I think the only thing that the beast companion has going for it is the increased AC as HP isn't higher enough to matter and damage is offset by using up an attack from the ranger) I think we can safely say balance is unlikely a concern in giving it instead of beast master's abilities and possibly safe to give to the ranger generally.

[OldTrees1]

Just curious, how do you duplicate Locate Object with Find Steed?

Find Steed:

While mounted on your steed, you can make any spell you cast that Targets only you also target your steed.
Locate Object:

Range: Self

I believe that only targets yourself (Range: Self). So you and your mount can share that extra sense, which helps with triangulation or covering a very broad area. Different DMs might rule differently. Which spells count or don't count is a bit subjective in 5E but being able to duplicate some spells can have interesting effects.



We have evidence that WotC did not think that, in fact we have evidence that WotC specifically denied Beast master working like that given that the beast companion is required to be medium size or smaller which excludes most of the find steed options and prevents all medium sized rangers from having a mount companion.

I do not see that as evidence against a companion spell being added to Ranger and then refactored as a class feature. However you do see it as evidence against that theory. That is fair.

Would it be safe to give Beast Master Find Steed in place of its features? Even if that is a strict buff, I think Beast Master deserves more than just Find Steed. It should have some features beyond that if you go that route. It sounds like Kane0 has ideas.


I just realized i made a find beast companion spell as a ranger counterpart to find steed, with the beastmaster getting bonuses to the spell and beast.

Could you elaborate more?

[Witty Username]

I do not see that as evidence against a companion spell being added to Ranger and then refactored as a class feature. However you do see it as evidence against that theory. That is fair.

A general companion spell, maybe. I doubt that it looked much like find steed though. Or if it did, steps were taken to make it not capable of features of find steed.



Would it be safe to give Beast Master Find Steed in place of its features? Even if that is a strict buff, I think Beast Master deserves more than just Find Steed. It should have some features beyond that if you go that route. It sounds like Kane0 has ideas.

Oh, I wasn't intending that as a course of action, more a claim of power level. Sorry if I was unclear. I agree that a beastmaster subclass should get more than: add one 2nd level spell to their list.

[Kane0]

Ah, here we are.

Find Companion
2nd-level Conjuration
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: 30 feet
Components: V, S, M
Duration: Instantaneous

You summon a spirit that assumes the form of an animal. Choose a beast that is of large size or smaller and that has a challenge rating of 1/4 or lower. Appearing in an unoccupied space within range, the companion has the statistics of the chosen form.
Your companion acts independently of you on your initiative, but it always obeys your commands.
When within 100 feet you can communicate with your companion telepathically, and when you cast a spell with a range of self you can choose to touch your companion to also target them with that spell.
As an action, you can dismiss your companion permanently.
A companion that drops to 0 hit points disappears, leaving behind no physical form. If you cast this spell while you already have a companion, you instead restore your companion to its hit point maximum and can cause it to adopt a new form that meets the same requirements above.
At Higher Levels: If you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the companion is up to CR 1/2. If you use a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the companion is up to CR 1. If you use a spell slot of 5th level or higher, the companion is up to CR 2.

Level 3, Beast Companion
You can cast the Find Companion spell without expending a spell slot or material components. Once you cast this spell you cannot do so again until you finish a long rest.
When you cast Find Companion you add your proficiency bonus to the beast’s AC and attack rolls, as well as to any saving throws and skills it is proficient in. The beast's hit point maximum is equal to (4 + its Constitution modifier) for each level of ranger you have.

At ranger level 7 you cast Find Companion as if from a 3rd level spell slot, at level 11 a 4th level spell slot and level 15 a 5th level spell slot.

Level 3: Beastform
As an action you can assume the form of a beast you have seen before that is CR 1/8 or lower and large size or smaller. You can use your Beastform a number of times equal to your Wisdom modifier (minimum 1). You regain any expended uses at the end of a long rest.

You can stay in a beast shape for a number of hours equal to your proficiency bonus. You then revert to your normal form unless you expend another use of this feature. You can revert to your normal form earlier by using a Bonus Action on your turn. You automatically revert if you fall unconscious, drop to 0 Hit Points, or die.

Your statistics, including mental Ability Scores, are replaced by the Statistics of the chosen beast. You assume the Hit Points of your new form. When you revert to your normal form you return to the number of Hit Points you had before you transformed. If you revert as a result of Dropping to 0 Hit Points, any excess damage carries over to your normal form. As long as the excess damage does not reduce your normal form to 0 Hit Points, you are not knocked Unconscious.

You retain your alignment and personality. You cannot speak, cast Spells, or take any other action that requires hands or speech. Your gear melds into the new form. You cannot activate, use, wield, or otherwise benefit from any of your equipment.

Level 7: Beastcall
By spending one minute you can call up to twelve beasts of up to CR 1/2 to you from the surrounding area, determined by the DM. Upon arrival these beasts are friendly to you and will assist with one task for up to one hour before dispersing.
Once you use this feature you cannot do so again until you finish a long rest.

Level 11: Bestial Fury
When attacking a creature you have marked as your Quarry, your beasts attacks are considered magical for the purposes of overcoming damage resistance and immunity. In addition, your beast companion gains the following reaction:
Defensive Pounce: The beast companion imposes disadvantage on the attack roll of one creature it can see that is within its reach, provided the attack is against a creature other than the beast companion.

Level 15: Greater Beastcall
You can use your Beastcall feature as an action instead of taking one minute, and call up to CR 1 beasts to assist you. In addition, you regain use of your Beastcall feature when you finish a short or long rest.

[Witty Username]

Feels druidy, I like it.

[OldTrees1]

Nice.

It does a good job of implementing 3 different beastmaster themes (companion, shifter, & pack) without feeling unfocused.

On first look it appears stronger than the Hunter subclass. Level 3 feels quite frontloaded, but I blame some of that on the subclass framework. I would suggest "allow but monitor". Edit: I forgot about Tashas

I like how the features are designed for broad applications. Being useful out of combat helps.

[Kane0]

Yeah it’d work for a druid too, very few thinggs youd have to change.

However you do have to factor in the fact you’re a full caster so maybe dial it back a touch to compensate

Edit: in line with Tashas might have to add the ability to get extra uses out of your features using spell slots.

[Floorlock]

Okay. I don't think anyone should be allowed access to Find Steed other than paladins because it's one of the most iconic paladin abilities throughout more or less all editions of D&D. The flavor of paladins calling a celestial steed to their side as a reward from their deity for their continued piety and service is a very strong one, and it really bothers me that it was turned into a spell for other classes (read: bards) to have.

It's not just me being a grump over changes from legacy either, honest - it's part of a greater issue I have with 5e, in that standardization and normalization of everything has a price that often gets overlooked or drowned out in favor of the benefits said normalization provides. There's no doubt that 5e is a slicker, more streamlined version of the game and probably the best mechanical ruleset it has ever had. But that came with a cost for me - it doesn't invoke the same kind of wonder in me anymore, and bards riding paladin steeds is perhaps the best example of that I can see.

Hmmm. I get what you're saying in a lot of ways. Bards are an extreme, but prevalent, situation. I sometimes wonder if there shouldn't have been a clause that at least warded Bards away from late game Paladin and Ranger spells such as Find Greater Steed and Swift Quiver. I love having access to those spells...but, it admittedly does seem slightly unfair given that they can't be accessed by their primary classes until later levels...
I don't know. Maybe at least they could be cut off until a Bard is also taking their late game magical secret picks...but, then swift quiver especially might not be worth it in a lot of cases. Well. Really nothing is worth it next to wish...which would allow them to get a steed anyways.

Regardless of the situation with bards, however... The Ranger feels like it's in a slightly different boat.

It's a class that runs parallel to the Paladin as the other half-caster (before the artificer came along). It's also a class that seems to be most attuned to animals and the natural world. Having a Fey spirit steed for the Ranger can be just as strong of a narrative as a Paladin and their celestial mount.

I don't know. This might just be a difference of perspective. I didn't go through original, advanced, or second edition. Heck, the first time I played was an old game of D20 Modern. I don't really have an emotional attachment to the staunch traditions of d&d classes. I'm usually more into the free-form variety that systems like GURPS hands out...but, I completely understand that D&D thrives on a class system. I'm just not always a fan of things being so boxed in. I completely love and respect the idea of the classic White Knight upon a Shining Steed archetype...I just don't always want to play it...and I think there is more room for different types of characters with different types of magical steeds.

For example. 2 years ago I had a player who's main experience with RPGs was with the Elder Scrolls series. He was a fan of the Dark Brotherhood and the potential access to the dark, shadowy steed Shadowmere. If Rangers had access to find steed...I could have maybe pointed him towards the Gloomstalker Ranger as a potential build idea. A little bit of Assassin flavor, a little bit of magic, and the ability to summon forth some sort of special steed? It would have all flowed together.

And look...I know that d&d will never be what some people say it is upfront (a game where you can do almost anything)...well...not without a mountain of extra work from the DM...
But, having that extra option will put it just that one step closer. I guess I never see it as taking archetypes away as much as adding more archetypes to the pool.
I do realize, however, that you have to be careful with it. It can easily turn into Syndrome's master plan in which...well..."When everyone's super, no one will be." Conversely...I feel like 5e d&d gives off that vibe already considering how it's harder to avoid classes with magic than the other way around.

[Floorlock]

Did you consider the difference between Find Familiar / Find Steed and other 1st/2nd/4th level spells? Namely that the spells give a permanent benefit for being cast in advance and thus do not take a spell slot? These spells known act like class features (I not talking about class exclusive features) rather than normal spells. If you have the class feature, you get the permanent benefit.

Now you were considering maybe only Beast Master would get Find Steed. I would argue WotC thought the exact same thing, and then converted the known spell into an explicit class feature. I believe the implementation was lacking, but I have to admit having a constant companion is a viable alternative feature to knowing the Find Steed spell.

No, to be fair, this is not exactly the "no" side. There were multiple valid ways of designing the ranger companion. It might make more sense to fix the chosen method rather than just adding class features. Especially since Find Steed is an intelligent telepathic immortal rather than just an animal mount. An ideal world would have Ranger's companion fit them better than the Find Steed spell would.

I did consider that.
I just considered that Rangers having those potential class features might not be that bad. They would be thematic, narratively cohesive, and a boost in magical ability to a class that most have been disappointed with.

Like I said in my original response...I haven't pulled that trigger yet. I'm just closer to it than maybe most would be. I'm just looking for strong evidence that it would be mechanically broken so that I stop myself before implementing it into my next campaign. Lol.

I don't necessarily think there's a problem with the Ranger gaining an intelligent telepathic immortal, especially since one of the classifications it can be is fey...which seems to be pretty on-brand.

I think one thing that leans me further towards "yes" than "no" as well is the fact that Rangers are "Spells Known" as opposed to prepared casters.

It really cuts into the things that they can do. A beastmaster would maybe never even consider find steed...as it would take up one of their precious known spells AND they already have a perfectly good companion...especially if they're a gnome or halfling and can already utilize their companion as a mount.

Admittedly, you'd have to be a bit crazy to pass up Find Greater Steed later on...considering you'd be passing up on flight and a slightly more combat-capable pet than Find Steed provides.

If nothing else, the new Unearthed Arcana Drakewarden Ranger seems to be giving out a pet that brings quite a bit of cool factor as well as power and added utility later on when it can also become a flying mount. It's something.