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

[MonsterEnvy]

I wonder what inspired the Ranger Animal companion in D&D?

Like I think it might possibly be Drizzt, but he doesn’t actually have one, he has a magic item.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I wonder what inspired the Ranger Animal companion in D&D?

Like I think it might possibly be Drizzt, but he doesn’t actually have one, he has a magic item.

Pretty much any 'outdoorsman / wild man' trope?

Pretty much any dude who is good at the touching of grass is also depicted as Friend to All Non-Tasty Animals. Tarzan, Davy Crocket, Mogli-- all Disney Princesses who can't sing as well.

 

[Incenjucar]

Hunting with a dog, horse, or falcon are all still done today, and can be used in combination, but it's a pretty hefty change to make it a default.

Frankly the game should just have feats that can be used to invest in useful pets, partner animals, and mounts with enough options to cover most classes. A cleric with a St. Bernard that carries healing potion, a rogue's trained raven pickpocket, or a wizard's athletic donkey steed work as well. Maybe give rangers a feat that lets them use abilities through animal allies etc.

 

[Marandahir]

I wonder what inspired the Ranger Animal companion in D&D?

Like I think it might possibly be Drizzt, but he doesn’t actually have one, he has a magic item.

You could get Werebear and Unicorn and Gold Dragon followers in OD&D, but the pet followers really emerged in 2e (though no Tigers for you because your campaign doesn't take place in a part of the world with Tigers, obviously! DM May I is rule of the game). Combine this with the animal handling skills and really it was a backdoor pet class starting at this point.

But the Crystal Shard was a year earlier than 2e, hence why Salvatore uses a Figurine of Wondrous Power black panther to backstep into the role. I still think the 2e feature is more a natural evolution of the more creative followers in OD&D and the slight lean toward nature in 1e.

If we really want to be true to original dnd rangers they should function like Fighters with restrictions until 8th level and then get 1st-level cleric spells, and then at 9th level get 1st-level wizard spells, and vice versa each level on upward from there.

 

[Minigiant]

I wonder what inspired the Ranger Animal companion in D&D?

Like I think it might possibly be Drizzt, but he doesn’t actually have one, he has a magic item.

Outdoorsmanship.

One of the part people forget is most of these iconic rangers live in low magic worlds were a wolf or bear could fight all possible threat.

D&D is high magic

Once you have to deal with vampires, werewolves, liches, demons, and dragons, the idea of an@ unarmored unarmed wolf fighting a Greater Fiend or Adult Dragon without magical support is kinda stupid.

Part of the ranger science is either teaching the companion to wear armor/weapon or casting spells on it.

This is also where the ranger pet class falls apart.

You need magic to keep your beast up to level.

But a ranger with good weapon use, skill use, spell use, and a whole companion is broken.


4e was right and made the shaman the pet class why cutting their weapons, skills, and offensive spells to boost the companion. The 4e beastmaster has to sacrifice their actions to the beast for it to act.

 

[Staffan]

Pretty much any 'outdoorsman / wild man' trope?

Pretty much any dude who is good at the touching of grass is also depicted as Friend to All Non-Tasty Animals. Tarzan, Davy Crocket, Mogli-- all Disney Princesses who can't sing as well.

It's common for ranger-type characters to be "friendly to animals" – if they meet an animal, and it's not dinner time, they can probably resolve that peacefully. It is significantly less common for them to have an animal companion that fights alongside them.

 

[Minigiant]

The more I think about it, the more 4e looks right about companions.
D&D needs a shaman class for the companion role.


The Shaman class gets a companion spirit.

The subclass subclasses choose whether the spirit is an ancestor or guardian spirit or if the spirit merges with an animal, weapon, or elemental.

Half caster with simple weapons, boosted healing and buffs to the Companion.

 

[Marandahir]

Outdoorsmanship.

One of the part people forget is most of these iconic rangers live in low magic worlds were a wolf or bear could fight all possible threat.

D&D is high magic

Once you have to deal with vampires, werewolves, liches, demons, and dragons, the idea of an@ unarmored unarmed wolf fighting a Greater Fiend or Adult Dragon without magical support is kinda stupid.

Part of the ranger science is either teaching the companion to wear armor/weapon or casting spells on it.

This is also where the ranger pet class falls apart.

You need magic to keep your beast up to level.

But a ranger with good weapon use, skill use, spell use, and a whole companion is broken.


4e was right and made the shaman the pet class why cutting their weapons, skills, and offensive spells to boost the companion. The 4e beastmaster has to sacrifice their actions to the beast for it to act.

I don't think v5.2 is wrong to allow the Beast Master Ranger to share their actions rather than sacrifice them, choosing one or the other. This was the biggest issue with the v4.0 Martial Power Beast Master and the v5.0-5.1 Beast Master. The 4e Shaman was an interesting idea of a spirit guide with supernatural abilities. They tried to meet it with two Barbarian Paths (5.0-5.1 Totem Warrior aka 5.2 Wild Heart and XGE's Ancestral Guardian) and 1 Druid Circle (XGE's Dreams), but I think a Ranger with spirit guides would be a VERY interesting subclass.

I think this speaks to the fact that enough Rangers have companions of sorts that you can build it into a lot of Ranger archetypes and stretch out the archetypes based on categories of companions (Beasts, Swarms, Drakes, etc - I still REALLY want to see a Mounted Ranger as it's literally a defining feature of Rangers in many fictional spaces), but enough lack it that if you're carving out that design space, you need something equally as potent for all the other Rangers to get.

It makes me think of the calls for a Spell-less Ranger -- balancing that is super tricky. In a system more akin to Skills & Powers or 13A, maybe you could get a Companion, Spells, or Weapon Mastery & Maneuvers, or some shallow amount of multiple, but not all at depth.

I was re-reading Brandes Stoddard's History of the Classes: Ranger series on Tribality this morning to remember the journey the class went on, and it reminded me of what Mearls discussed back in the Revised Ranger article - of the 3-pointed triangle of good Ranger design - Skirmisher, Wanderer, and Guardian. I'd add to it that in parallel, the Ranger is a balance of Rogue, Druid, and Fighter (or even Paladin). Make any angle on either of these triangles too obtuse, and the class starts to fall apart. It's not just a Druid Gish, nor is it just a Rogue/Druid. You'd be better off with subclasses of Rogue or Druid or Fighter if it was, or with using the Multiclass system. Of course, in a theoretical more CharOp tinkering system, you could tailor your Ranger to lean more one way or another. I just think that in past editions, this lead towards class identity bleeding out a bit. I'd rather see subclass options that lean one way or another or the third thematically (much like how the War Domain or College of Valour lean warrior for classes otherwise sort of in the middle). I like the Warden/Magician and Protector/Thaumaturge options for Druid & Cleric and wonder if options like this for all classes separate from subclass would be useful to help players further customize their characters.

 

[mellored]

Yes, they should get animals.

Specifically large construct animals which they ride in.

Subclasses are red, blue, yellow, black and pink.

And they have decent unarmed combat.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think v5.2 is wrong to allow the Beast Master Ranger to share their actions rather than sacrifice them, choosing one or the other. This was the biggest issue with the v4.0 Martial Power Beast Master and the v5.0-5.1 Beast Master. The 4e Shaman was an interesting idea of a spirit guide with supernatural abilities. They tried to meet it with two Barbarian Paths (5.0-5.1 Totem Warrior aka 5.2 Wild Heart and XGE's Ancestral Guardian) and 1 Druid Circle (XGE's Dreams), but I think a Ranger with spirit guides would be a VERY interesting subclass.

I think this speaks to the fact that enough Rangers have companions of sorts that you can build it into a lot of Ranger archetypes and stretch out the archetypes based on categories of companions (Beasts, Swarms, Drakes, etc - I still REALLY want to see a Mounted Ranger as it's literally a defining feature of Rangers in many fictional spaces), but enough lack it that if you're carving out that design space, you need something equally as potent for all the other Rangers to get.

It makes me think of the calls for a Spell-less Ranger -- balancing that is super tricky. In a system more akin to Skills & Powers or 13A, maybe you could get a Companion, Spells, or Weapon Mastery & Maneuvers, or some shallow amount of multiple, but not all at depth.

I was re-reading Brandes Stoddard's History of the Classes: Ranger series on Tribality this morning to remember the journey the class went on, and it reminded me of what Mearls discussed back in the Revised Ranger article - of the 3-pointed triangle of good Ranger design - Skirmisher, Wanderer, and Guardian. I'd add to it that in parallel, the Ranger is a balance of Rogue, Druid, and Fighter (or even Paladin). Make any angle on either of these triangles too obtuse, and the class starts to fall apart. It's not just a Druid Gish, nor is it just a Rogue/Druid. You'd be better off with subclasses of Rogue or Druid or Fighter if it was, or with using the Multiclass system. Of course, in a theoretical more CharOp tinkering system, you could tailor your Ranger to lean more one way or another. I just think that in past editions, this lead towards class identity bleeding out a bit. I'd rather see subclass options that lean one way or another or the third thematically (much like how the War Domain or College of Valour lean warrior for classes otherwise sort of in the middle). I like the Warden/Magician and Protector/Thaumaturge options for Druid & Cleric and wonder if options like this for all classes separate from subclass would be useful to help players further customize their characters.

I think a part of the problem is that many people see many of the various aspects of the Ranger not being connected.

But the study of nature would have many different branches and would express themselves fantastically indifferent manners.

Fantasy Beast lure would look a lot different from fantasy plant lore which would look very different from fantasy meteorology.

Much how they are eight schools of magic There may be eight schools of Rangering.

So attempting to find a single point of archetypeness or a triad, will always miss stuff