Azzy
ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
IMO, no. I liked that pets were relegated to a subclass. Having played a 2014 ranger, I had no desire to have sidekick to keep track of.
D&D General Should ranger get a companion as its 'signature' feature?
- Thread starter Frozen_Heart
- Start date
Marandahir
Crown-Forester (he/him)
That sounds like too many angles of specialization in my book – more of a GURPS system, where it's hard too be a decent generalist and you have to specialize or else you're behind on the power curve significantly.
The 8 schools of magic are more than just for Wizards; it's just that they have 8 of their Arcane Traditions that are specialists in those schools. Rangers still cast evocations and transmutations and illusions and abjurations etc.
I'm pretty excited by they idea that Ranger/Paladin/Warlock/Sorcerer/Artificer spells aren't poachable without the sacrifice of multiclassing; this means they really can tailor more tight-knit archetypes that can be more powerful spells than equivalent of their levels that the core casters have access too.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
I'm not sure splitting spellcasting from having an animal companion would, ultimately, be a very happy division. The ranger is going to need a path for healing and buffing the companion or risk the companion becoming dead or irrelevant through inability to deal with more supernatural opponents.
Marandahir
Crown-Forester (he/him)
This. My concern is that generalist character archetypes get shafted when you push towards highly specialized archetypes. Look at the last UA version of the Psion – it was essentially a d8 Hit Die and some proficiencies, as a carrying chassis for 4 otherwise unrelated Psionic subclasses. Or look at the Spells and Powers Ranger and how if you choose not to specialize and instead invest in all of the archetypal features, you're seriously behind the curve (v3.X had the same issue but with the Rangers' skills being too segregated and not having enough skill points to do everything a Ranger could do in past editions).
Specializing can and should be an option, but not at the expense of the generalist essentially being 5 different 1st Level Rangers with only 1 action in a party otherwise filled with 5th Level characters. The trick is balancing specialists and generalists. It's one of the hardest things about game balance!
mellored
Legend
Serious answer.
Since no one can agree, give it invocations and let everyone pick.
Speak with Animals passive
Expertise, can be take multiple times.
Herbal healing, durring a short rest everyone rolls hit dice twice and takes the highest
-herbal master, maximize hit dice on a short rest. Target can expended 3 hit dice to cure a disease.
Allies traveling with you can use your stealth roll - 5.
Can track though dirt/rock/water/air/across plains.
-can track even if they hide themselves with magic, such as nondetect. (Level 17).
Summon familiar once per long rest.
Ensnaring Stike once per short rest
Zephyr Stike once per short rest.
Steel wind stike once per short rest (level 17)
-tree stride once per long rest
*all the other not-a-spells as appropriate.
Subclasses
Hunter: hunter's mark cantrip, hunter's mark damage boost, hunter's mark advantage
Beastmaster: pet
Horizon walker: teleports, counter teleport (when you are teleported you can choose the destination), teleport enemies.
Guide: Pact Tactics, boost allies initive, share Pact Tactics
Since no one can agree, give it invocations and let everyone pick.
Speak with Animals passive
Expertise, can be take multiple times.
Herbal healing, durring a short rest everyone rolls hit dice twice and takes the highest
-herbal master, maximize hit dice on a short rest. Target can expended 3 hit dice to cure a disease.
Allies traveling with you can use your stealth roll - 5.
Can track though dirt/rock/water/air/across plains.
-can track even if they hide themselves with magic, such as nondetect. (Level 17).
Summon familiar once per long rest.
Ensnaring Stike once per short rest
Zephyr Stike once per short rest.
Steel wind stike once per short rest (level 17)
-tree stride once per long rest
*all the other not-a-spells as appropriate.
Subclasses
Hunter: hunter's mark cantrip, hunter's mark damage boost, hunter's mark advantage
Beastmaster: pet
Horizon walker: teleports, counter teleport (when you are teleported you can choose the destination), teleport enemies.
Guide: Pact Tactics, boost allies initive, share Pact Tactics
Marandahir
Crown-Forester (he/him)
Invocations is actually an interesting idea. I've always thought that the 4e Shaman should be a Warlock subclass and invocation kit set. Ranger invocations or something like it for specialized builds is an interesting concept.
I do wonder how this aligns with the philosophy of the Warlock being a CharOp toolkit class (great versatility in builds, but you're locked in with not much flexibility once you've chosen your build) versus Sorcerers being a on-the-fly toolkit class (low quantity of spells, but a lot of flexibility to modify them to suit the needs of the moment). I feel like yes, many people want different things from Rangers, so letting you CharOp them makes a sort of sense, but you lose the fiction of "I'm good at everything I need to be to live at Home on the Range where the Deer and the Antelope Play" – they're suited to a bit more flexibility than predefined CharOp. I think this is why I like that they're now Spell-List Preparers in SRD v5.2, rather than limited Spells Known in v5.0-5.1. It avoids the pitfall of "Oh, we're no longer in the desert fighting undead, I guess I'm not a Ranger anymore."
See I can see that working.
People would just have to accept that some bits would take multiple Invocations to keep up to level.
And you'd need hard pretzels to keep people from only picking the power ones and skipping all the flavor.
jmartkdr2
Hero
As per the bolded part - if we're talking about natural environments, you need very little to get that across. Because there's no real wilderness-survival minigame to work with*, any feature that leans into this fantasy is gonna feel like a ribbon anyways.
The rest of the main ranger tropes (foe hunter, stalker, archer, dual-wielder, beastmaster, druid-lite) are usually things people want available but are not required. IE people aren't all-in on "all rangers should have companions" but imagine the riot if WotC tried to remove companions entirely. Like wizards, it's important for the class to have variability but not for each individual to be able to do everything.
*Why there isn't is a whole other thread.
Vaalingrade
Legend
It's... pretty common. To the point this comment confused me.
People mock this trope as 'Pokemon', but animal sidekicks and companions are a tale as old a mankind.
Similar Threads
