D&D General Should ranger get a companion as its 'signature' feature?

Xeviat · Thursday at 7:18 PM

Horwath said:
View attachment 372131

I was serious.

Having the Ranger be based around an animal Companion would differentiate it's base playstyle from other similar classes. Scout Rogue and a potential Guerilla Fighter would do the nonmagical ranger stuff just fine, where as an animal Companion would make them stand out.

Then, having the classic Favored Enemy ability, which has always been the Ranger's core ability, be their subclass would allow for abilities that are broadly useful, rather than floating damage bonuses like 3e. Dragon Slayers could get energy resistances, giant slayers get bonuses against large opponents, bounty hunters get abilities to subdue, horde breakers get multi attack...

Remathilis · Friday at 12:16 AM

Lanefan said:
Ranger's identity should be tracking, herb lore*, nature, and self-sufficiency**; all on top of a basic fighter-like warrior chassis. @Minigiant is on to something with natural sciences, to a point: meteorology, cartography, astronomy, basic medical knowledge for self and animals, and plant science: sure; but not geology (unless a Dwarf) and not social science. The player would select one or two of these sciences from a list during char-gen.

I'm of two minds as to whether Rangers should ever cast spells, but IMO at most spellcasting should be a very minor feature of the class - maybe no spells until 9th level then 1 spell a day (from a very short list and cast as if 8 levels lower) until 15th then two a day after that.

Along with Bards, Monks, and the other "life-style" classes, Rangers IMO should be highly restricted in their multiclassing options as well, even to the point of they just can't do it. You can't just dabble at Rangering; it has to be your life's focus to the exclusion of anything else as time-consuming as learning another class.

* - D&D has always had available, but never really used, great gobs of design space around magic or quasi-magic herbs and plants; and Rangers are the obvious class where this would fit.

** - as in, able to forage for itself and survive in the wild on its own; this doesn't extend to being able to forage for a whole party.

So a fighter with the Survival skill. Got it.

fluffybunbunkittens · Friday at 12:22 AM

I think the beast companion is the only truly unique thing Ranger has going for it, and I love the concept... but I also don't think that's enough of a niche to build a class around. Maybe if the class was called the Summoner, and all of their things were dedicated towards that, then you knew to pick it to play around with pets.

I also don't think you should model pets/summons with their own tokens, stat blocks and sets of actions. That way lies insanity, here's my 32 badgers. You should just say you attack with BADGERSTORM, and here's what that does.

Remathilis · Friday at 12:23 AM

To the OPs question, I would not complain if the ranger got their pet as part of their base power instead of spells. But I don't think the 5.24 ranger is going to be as bad as it looked in previews. I think it's going to be a solid if a little basic class.

Marandahir · Friday at 4:09 AM

I just don't think that Pokémon Trainer Ranger represents enough of the trope space of Rangers.

Honestly, the hunter's mark space is a bit off for me too; I thought that leaning into the exploration pillar in 2014 was the right direction, the system just lacks a robust enough exploration pillar to pay it off. Rangers are people who RANGE. They should be focused on getting from point A to point B in an expertly but FUN way.

If you HAVE to do a beast companion, I feel Find Steed would be just as meaningful to a Ranger as it is to a Paladin.

The skill system would need to be quite a bit deeper too, or else you run into the issue of "fighter with survival and nature skills."

I think the Magic Initiate feat changes would allow the Ranger spell list to be a lot more tailored to Ranger abilities, to allow classes like Ranger (and Paladin, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Artificer) to access what are essentially a list of 4e-style specialty powers, or something akin to the Monk's ki-based features, while still letting them access small amounts of shared spell space with their respective Full Caster counterparts. Essentially, while Healing Word may be explicitly magical in nature, the Ranger spell list could include a lot of natural to supernatural abilities to choose from instead, without worrying about Bards or Magic Initiates mining them for their stuff.

Micah Sweet · Friday at 4:54 AM

Scott Christian said:
On a personal level, I have always disliked the throw-away companion aspect of any class. If you told me they get a dog or wolf or lion or whatever, and it could die never to return, I would be all aboard. But I never enjoyed the "spirit animal" just to have an extra attack or give advantage or whatever.

I will say this also, my reason for disliking this is from both sides of the table. As a DM, it's just a distraction that throws wrenches into the exploration pillar of the game. As a player, I have never seen it roleplayed out. It is just a mechanical feature - nothing more. Where when the animal was real, I have seen many roleplaying decisions and events that revolve around a real animal.

Agreed. Really not a fan of the "fake" animal companion/familiar/what have you, especially if it was clearly concepted as a real animal and changed for gamist reasons.

Micah Sweet · Friday at 4:55 AM

Minigiant said:
No. All ranges do not have animal companions.

The Rangers signature ability should be earth, social, and life science

Zoology botany geology meteorology sociology etc

A Ranger is a man who studies the earth to aid them in defending people from the wilderness and/or to protect nature.

Fantasy Greenpeace?

cbwjm · Friday at 6:28 AM

I think one of the old happy fun hours had ideas for a ranger that chose to gain either spells, a companion, or some other ability I can't remember. I'd probably like something like that, make the ranger a class that has a few different paths it can follow.

Horwath · Friday at 6:58 AM

cbwjm said:
I think one of the old happy fun hours had ideas for a ranger that chose to gain either spells, a companion, or some other ability I can't remember. I'd probably like something like that, make the ranger a class that has a few different paths it can follow.

companion, spells or battlemaster maneuvers?

cbwjm · Friday at 7:54 AM

Horwath said:
companion, spells or battlemaster maneuvers?

Maybe, it was ages ago since I saw it but that sounds like it could be right.

D&D General Should ranger get a companion as its 'signature' feature?

Xeviat

Hero

Remathilis

Legend

fluffybunbunkittens

Hero

Remathilis

Legend

Marandahir

Crown-Forester (he/him)

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast

cbwjm

Seb-wejem

Horwath

Legend

cbwjm

Seb-wejem

Similar Threads

Voidrunner's Codex