By request: Workshopping another Ranger

[Bjarkmundur]

From a DM standpoint, to-hit and damage doesn't matter all that much. There are so many variables within any given party composition, it's impossible to have some sort of standard. This is partly why I think charop is silly. If all my players are using GWM and PAM, I'll simply start giving all my monsters +50% HP, since I know they won't enjoy themselves if that battles aren't challenging. If I had two groups running, one with optimisers and one with non-optimisiers, the combat encounters would be just as challenging between the two. The only difference between the groups is that one group can use any and all of the character options presented, while the other is stuck to playing an optimised build. The only reason I want damage to be normalized between builds is that I want the player to have complete freedom in choosing how he builds his ranger, without having to be told by other players he's playing 'the worst build'. This is something the original ranger failed at doing, making the player feel like he actually had options. I'm not 100%, but usually I just see Gloomstalker rangers and people laughing at players that picked Beastmaster. I'd rather not have history repeat itself and help create a class that has a laughable option and only one or two viable ones.

This is why I want the builds to have clear strengths and weaknesses. I don't want to present the players with options that don't work. Why include a shield proficiency if the class doesn't work as intended when using a shield? Why does playing a ranger with a longbow make you feel you are not playing the class as intended? Most of this boils down to weapon choices and bonus actions:

Beastmaster
The Beastmaster can use his bonus action to make the beast attack.

Works well with 2-handed.
Works well with shield.
Doesn't work with TWF.

Using TWF leaves your beast idle and useless. If you give the beast protection fighting style at level 3, the problem is solved. If you do that, now the other styles are too strong since they can utilize the beasts bonus action AND reaction. This is the only possible solution I can see is a selectable feature.

Starting at 3rd level, you can choose your beastmastery style:

1. Beast Triggers Quarry
2. Beast gains Protection Fighting Style.

Hunter
The hunter doesn't have a bonus action that can trigger his Quarry damage.

Works with TWF
Doesn't work with 2-handed
Doesn't work with Shield

This means you need a way to use your bonus action to trigger your Quarry damage. The only way I can see to fix this is to give the Hunter Quick Strike, so he can get that 2d4 Quarry damage using his bonus action.

1. Can use Quick Strike

Warden
Doesn't have a a bonus action, limited to Druid spells, has very few spell slots.

Works with TWF
Doesn't work with 2-handed
Doesn't work with Shield.

Again we need to give the Warden some way to utilize his bonus action. I see three options on how to give the Warden similar offensive uses with his bonus action as the Beastmaster and TWF Hunter currently have.

1. Make the Warden a half-caster with the Ranger Spell list, but can learn rituals from the Druid list.

This has multiple beneficial side effects, such as more more spell slots, without affecting the theme of the subclass. This is possibly a no-brainer, but I'll leave it up the the lead designers.

2. Use Quick Strike
3. Can use bonus action to mark his quarry.

When you look at the options I've presented, It seems easy to balance the builds with just small additions to each subclass.

• Beastmaster gains a selectable feature
• Hunter gains quick strike
• Warden gains the original ranger spellcasting progression, and possibly the ability to mark as a bonus action.

With this step-by-step approach we've found the simplest possible solution to the discrepancies between the subclass, but whether this is used is pretty much up to Kane0.
These are design fixes. They don't calcluate damage, they just ensure that whatever the player picks he will feel good playing our class. When the character options have been ironed out, you can start looking at damage calculations again. No matter what the damage calculations are now, it is obvious that the Ranger only has two options: Go TWF or use Beast.

This is all done in order to keep the current Quarry damage, since it is SO perfect for what it is supposed to represent. I wouldn't dream about changing the Quarry feature.

I feel like it is starting to get messy, if we have to redesign TWF and the other styles completely just for the ranger class.

Agreed. Who would've thought that after everything going so well creating a great thematic ranger, it would be the weapons and damage that proved difficult.

If the TWF ranger deals too much damage, maybe make quarry only apply to one hit per turn (though I personally quite like it applying to every attack, for simplicity), or reduce the size of the die. Or as someone proposed, make it work only with the attack action, and not with bonus actions.

I'd personally want to keep the Quarry mechanic as written. I think our options are:

• Hold off on the fighting styles until we've identified the damage outliers.
• Fix the problem with there only being two good ranger builds (TWF and Beastmaster)
• Find the damage outliers.
• Once the damage outliers have been analysed we try to fix them using the simplest method possible.

There are so many moving pieces to this puzzle that we are likely to come up with multiple different solutions, each requiring its own set of tweaks to the already established class design. I've backed up our current version, in case we go down a path that we later find out doesn't work. That way we can reset to this date and try a different method of normalizing the damage.

If the BM beast deals too much damage, just remove the extra beast damage.

To adjust the Beast damage we have a few options:

• Have some of the ranger's statistics modify the damage (wisdom, proficiency bonus), or not.
• Have the beast trigger or not trigger Quarry
• Adjust the starting CR of the Beast down to 1/8 or not

[Fnissalot]

From a DM standpoint, to-hit and damage doesn't matter all that much. There are so many variables within any given party composition, it's impossible to have some sort of standard. This is partly why I think charop is silly. If all my players are using GWM and PAM, I'll simply start giving all my monsters +50% HP, since I know they won't enjoy themselves if that battles aren't challenging. If I had two groups running, one with optimisers and one with non-optimisiers, the combat encounters would be just as challenging between the two. The only difference between the groups is that one group can use any and all of the character options presented, while the other is stuck to playing an optimised build. The only reason I want damage to be normalized between builds is that I want the player to have complete freedom in choosing how he builds his ranger, without having to be told by other players he's playing 'the worst build'. This is something the original ranger failed at doing, making the player feel like he actually had options. I'm not 100%, but usually I just see Gloomstalker rangers and people laughing at players that picked Beastmaster. I'd rather not have history repeat itself and help create a class that has a laughable option and only one or two viable ones.

This is why I want the builds to have clear strengths and weaknesses. I don't want to present the players with options that don't work. Why include a shield proficiency if the class doesn't work as intended when using a shield? Why does playing a ranger with a longbow make you feel you are not playing the class as intended? Most of this boils down to weapon choices and bonus actions:

Beastmaster
The Beastmaster can use his bonus action to make the beast attack.

Works well with 2-handed.
Works well with shield.
Doesn't work with TWF.

Using TWF leaves your beast idle and useless. If you give the beast protection fighting style at level 3, the problem is solved. If you do that, now the other styles are too strong since they can utilize the beasts bonus action AND reaction. This is the only possible solution I can see is a selectable feature.

Starting at 3rd level, you can choose your beastmastery style:

1. Beast Triggers Quarry
2. Beast gains Protection Fighting Style.

Hunter
The hunter doesn't have a bonus action that can trigger his Quarry damage.

Works with TWF
Doesn't work with 2-handed
Doesn't work with Shield

This means you need a way to use your bonus action to trigger your Quarry damage. The only way I can see to fix this is to give the Hunter Quick Strike, so he can get that 2d4 Quarry damage using his bonus action.

1. Can use Quick Strike

Warden
Doesn't have a a bonus action, limited to Druid spells, has very few spell slots.

Works with TWF
Doesn't work with 2-handed
Doesn't work with Shield.

Again we need to give the Warden some way to utilize his bonus action. I see three options on how to give the Warden similar offensive uses with his bonus action as the Beastmaster and TWF Hunter currently have.

1. Make the Warden a half-caster with the Ranger Spell list, but can learn rituals from the Druid list.

This has multiple beneficial side effects, such as more more spell slots, without affecting the theme of the subclass. This is possibly a no-brainer, but I'll leave it up the the lead designers.

2. Use Quick Strike
3. Can use bonus action to mark his quarry.

When you look at the options I've presented, It seems easy to balance the builds with just small additions to each subclass.

• Beastmaster gains a selectable feature
• Hunter gains quick strike
• Warden gains the original ranger spellcasting progression, and possibly the ability to mark as a bonus action.

With this step-by-step approach we've found the simplest possible solution to the discrepancies between the subclass, but whether this is used is pretty much up to Kane0.
These are design fixes. They don't calcluate damage, they just ensure that whatever the player picks he will feel good playing our class. When the character options have been ironed out, you can start looking at damage calculations again. No matter what the damage calculations are now, it is obvious that the Ranger only has two options: Go TWF or use Beast.

This is all done in order to keep the current Quarry damage, since it is SO perfect for what it is supposed to represent. I wouldn't dream about changing the Quarry feature.


Agreed. Who would've thought that after everything going so well creating a great thematic ranger, it would be the weapons and damage that proved difficult.

I'd personally want to keep the Quarry mechanic as written. I think our options are:

• Hold off on the fighting styles until we've identified the damage outliers.
• Fix the problem with there only being two good ranger builds (TWF and Beastmaster)
• Find the damage outliers.
• Once the damage outliers have been analysed we try to fix them using the simplest method possible.

There are so many moving pieces to this puzzle that we are likely to come up with multiple different solutions, each requiring its own set of tweaks to the already established class design. I've backed up our current version, in case we go down a path that we later find out doesn't work. That way we can reset to this date and try a different method of normalizing the damage.

To adjust the Beast damage we have a few options:

• Have some of the ranger's statistics modify the damage (wisdom, proficiency bonus), or not.
• Have the beast trigger or not trigger Quarry
• Adjust the starting CR of the Beast down to 1/8 or not

While I agree to the general premises of this, I don't agree to your fixes for it nor that two options are that much better than everything else. There should not be any big trap options, and nothing should be experienced like one (even if it is statistically equal). I do not think that these suggestions you give would solve that. Statistics will solve the mathematical traps and play-testing will solve the experiential ones.

Limiting so that quarry does not trigger on TWF solves pretty much all issues with it dealing too much damage.

If beastmaster have only either +proficiency to hit or quarry to damage it is slightly above the curve but since the beast can still rather easily die and be crowd controlled, it is not as safe and should be fine. Lowering the CR to 1/8 lowers the beasts survivability more than the damage so I would avoid that if possible. And I am fine with not having a TWF beastmaster.

Warden should have enough spells that trigger on bonus actions that it should not need to have something else on the bonus action without it feeling bad. They also get primal assault on level 10. Warden is possibly an issue as it will deal likely too much damage later. They won't need a buff and I think it will play better with sword and board or archery than TWF. They will work as archer as they currently will get swift quiver which is one of the strongest spells in the game. Give me a half hour and I will have the analysis of it up and running.

Fighting styles should help sword and board and archery more than two weapon fighting at higher levels. Removing them will hurt these styles more than TWF.

If you want to add more stuff as bonus action, make it so you can do disengages as a bonus action. That will benefit ranged rangers a lot more than the melee ones. And we have search as a bonus action already. I also think it is fine that sword and board rangers do less damage since they have +2 to ac.

One option to push the hunters sword and board and ranged damage a bit up would be to change the level 3 ability to:
Once per turn, when you deal damage to your quarry, you can deal 1 additional quarry die to it.

[Moxxmix]

How about taking away +prof to damage instead? Same average damage, requires the same target.

Sorry, I'd already done that as I hadn't realized it had ever been there. And then it got removed, so it didn't matter. As currently modeled, the beast companion's damage is just its attack die plus its damage stat. It's essentially the same as the offhand weapon for TWF, but with variable dice and stat.

I will grant that leaving the Quarry damage on the pet is probably not as bad as implied by the spreadsheet model, since you have the option to get the pet to do a lot of things other than attack your current quarry. Even something as simple as having the pet focus on a separate target while the ranger is on the quarry brings it back into estimated damage range.

However I would guess that that would be undesirable because you're losing a potentially significant amount of damage if you don't keep the pet attacking the quarry target, which would encourage the player to only focus on making the pet do that one thing, which is not desirable in a broader sense. If the only way to be 'effective' is to keep the pet attacking the quarry target, that undermines all the other things the pet could be doing. On the other hand, if the pet is just an offhand weapon (more or less), then it's less constrained in the actions that can be taken. It's easier to redirect it to attack a different creature, and it's easier to take non-damage options if it doesn't feel like such an opportunity cost to do so.

As for proficiency added to damage, it's not necessary for the numbers, and I think it would be unneeded extra complication and/or confusion for the player, since it means the pet's damage is calculated differently from the player's damage. People might think that it's implying that you're supposed to add your proficiency bonus to damage in all cases (which is wrong), or miss that it's supposed to be added at all.

Nice analysis, what if we add quarry damage instead of giving proficiency to hit?
Edit: some quick checks on this. It seems about equal if we give +prof on beast attacks to hit to +quarry on damage. Quarry is slighty DPS vs Average AC. Prof to hit is better vs high AC. I am tempted to say that it would be more fun to give the beast the quarry to damage than the prof to hit. That should also make the poison dealing beasts slightly worse.

On average it's probably similar (in the same way that Archery and Duelist are similar), but my gut instinct is that making the companion so much less likely to hit would make it a lot less fun. If you only have a +1 to +3 to hit (from the attack stat), anything with AC higher than "pathetic" is mostly going to be a frustrating experience. (Moreso at higher levels than lower levels. Losing +2 at level 3 isn't a gamebreaker, but losing a +4 at level 9 is much more substantial.)

So, they may be comparable mathematically, but I would be against that change from the perspective of how it plays.

Quick Strike

That's way too complicated for the base class and starter subclasses.

~~~~

-review-

A lot of good points, but some things I want to comment on.

Beastmaster: It's not that it doesn't work with TWF, it's that it discourages it. It's a bit like the conflict between TWF and Cunning Action for the rogue — you have to make a choice as to what's important for you to use this turn. A Beastmaster can find ways to make TWF viable, but there are definitely constraints. And that's fine. But since mechanically both the offhand weapon and the beast companion are "extra damage", giving the Beastmaster both at the same time is clearly unbalanced, and reduces the desirability of all other builds.

Using TWF leaves your beast idle and useless. If you give the beast protection fighting style at level 3, the problem is solved. If you do that, now the other styles are too strong since they can utilize the beasts bonus action AND reaction. This is the only possible solution I can see is a selectable feature.

This is a bit disjointed, and I don't quite understand what you're saying here. It sounds like you're solving the problem and making it worse at the same time. Can you please explain a bit more clearly?

Hunter: It works fine with shield; that's what the Duelist fighting style can do. It just doesn't use the shield as a primary component of its fighting style. Which makes sense, given that the subclass is "Hunter", not "Protector".

On the other hand, I could see the Protection fighting style being more reasonable for non-Hunter subclasses, so having it as an option is not a bad thing, per se.

As for two-handed weapons, Hunter works fine with them. It's only that there's no appropriate fighting style to go with them available. This is not a problem with the Hunter; it's an issue of whether we want to allow two-handed weapons to be a part of the ranger design theme at all.

Personally, I'm against it. It doesn't feel like it fits the broader theme that is being designed for. Remember, as you yourself have noted, we need to keep focused on what we're creating. We don't want to dilute the design by throwing everything and the kitchen sink in here. Having (some) limits is good, because it helps define the design space, and weapon limits are common throughout the martial classes. The only class that's not particularly limited is the fighter, and that's because it's the catch-all for any concepts that aren't more specifically handled by others.

Caveat: Unless by two-handed you're referring to things like bows, which are two-handed. In that case, your wording is confusing. Also, the review becomes noticeably odd, now that I realize you haven't considered archery at all in your overview.

This means you need a way to use your bonus action to trigger your Quarry damage. The only way I can see to fix this is to give the Hunter Quick Strike, so he can get that 2d4 Quarry damage using his bonus action.

The conclusion is not valid. Hunter is already reasonably balanced as is, without needing Quarry damage on the bonus action. It is not something the subclass "needs". What it has instead is stronger Quarry damage in general.

Also, the Hunter wouldn't get 2d4 Quarry damage. The previous iteration, where it doubled the Quarry damage dice, was deemed too strong. It's back to using advantage Quarry dice (take the higher of two rolls).

Warden: You say that the Warden has no bonus actions, however there are a number of ranger spells that are cast as bonus actions. Thus I don't know that this is a valid critique.

~~~

No matter what the damage calculations are now, it is obvious that the Ranger only has two options: Go TWF or use Beast.

I strongly disagree with this. The damage difference between TWF and Dueling or Archery is on the order of 10% or less, which is barely noticeable, and both of those other options offer defensive benefits that TWF lacks. I do not feel that there is any strong design bias towards one or the other of the weapon fighting styles. Choosing TWF for higher damage is a microoptimization, and irrelevant to the broader audience this is intended for.

As for "only two options"...

Hunter:

Archery: Works well
Sword/Shield: Works well (slightly lower damage, but higher defense)
Two-weapon: Works well (higher damage)

Beastmaster:

Archery: Works well
Sword/Shield: Works well
Two-weapon: Conflicts with pet; usable, but discouraged; not a loss, because Pet

Warden:

Archery: Works well (synergizes with bonus action spells)
Sword/Shield: Works well
Two-weapon: Acceptable if not using bonus action spells

[Jaxby]

Of course I agree that there shouldn't be any decidedly bad options. Though I don't think they should all have exactly the same average damage either. Also, I don't know if I like forcing every ranger variant to be bonus action dependent.

That is one if the reasons I am advocating removing hunters mark from the warden, as that would free up your casting for something other than the go-to bonus action hunter's mark damage. I feel like a bonus action should be something you can choose to use, instead of it being mandatory.

1/2 caster warden: having built the base class as spell-less, will it not be too much to give a sub-class half-casting?

Speaking of; the spells also offer utility that the hunter does not have. So a slight decrease in damage is fair for the warden, though not so much it gets useless ofc. This goes back to my first paragraph of not having equal damage, if the subclass has other strengths.

You are right though, we are very close to a good final product:)

Edit: was aimed at Bjarkmundur's post, but seems like two posts hit the board before I was done writing :)

[Fnissalot]

Added warden to my spreadsheet.

Current implementation of hunters mark deals less damage than beastmaster but slightly more than hunter. Taking the damage down to 1d4 instead of 1d8 seems to make it more balanced.

Swift quiver pushes the warden ahead but it spends their lvl4 slot so that should be fine.

Hunter probably needs a little push in damage as the current lvl3 ability does not put hunters between wardens and beastmasters on the damage front. Eternal hunter and multiattack will probably negate the need for this at higher levels. Changing it to once per turn, deal double your quarry die on 1 attack is IMO the right amount of increase? Started adding a version of hunter with this but am too tired right now. will finish tomorrow.

[Bjarkmundur]

Read you comments, you guys are amazing. Thanks for taking part in this <3

[Moxxmix]

OK, I screwed up some of my understanding/expectation of the beastmaster's pet. Essentially, I failed to heed Mike Mearls' Happy Fun Hour advice: "Always check the actual rules; never assume your memory is correct." Starting from the top, I want to review my thoughts on them. This includes taking Bjarkmunder's advice, and focusing on theme first, damage second.

1) Proficiency Bonus

Both the PHB and the Revised Ranger assert that your Proficiency Bonus is added to:

• Skills (RR allows you to select two of your own choice)
• Saving Throws (RR gives the beast proficiency in all saves; PHB doesn't specify)
• Attack Rolls
• Armor Class
• Damage Rolls

I managed to screw up what I remembered about the original rules, and mixing up whether or not proficiency was added to damage rolls as things progressed in the thread.

RR grants proficiency in all saving throws, which is a vast improvement over the undefined state from the PHB (which, based on monster stat blocks, would seem to imply that most beasts are not proficient in any saving throws). Using the RR rule seems the better choice.

RR grants two custom selected skill proficiencies. This is a great help in making the beast more helpful in non-combat situations, since by default almost all beasts are limited to just Perception and Stealth as available skills. I see no reason not to include that.

Attack rolls are expected, and armor class helps make the beast more survivable (same as with saving throws). No complaints there.

Damage rolls are where things get tricky. This becomes a competition between damage potential and action economy.

PHB: The beast's attack effectively replaces one of your attacks. Does not combine with two-weapon fighting, because you only get the bonus action attack if you take the Attack action, which you aren't using; you're using a Command action on the pet. Granting bonus proficiency damage to the beast nudges your overall damage up a bit, partially replacing the potential offhand attack.

Attacks each round would be: [ranger or beast], [ranger extra], [ranger offhand (optional)]

RR: The beast acts as an entirely separate entity. As far as I can tell, it uses none of your action economy. The ranger himself does not get Extra Attack, but the beast can use its reaction to make an attack alongside your attack. So the ranger always gets 1 attack, plus possibly an offhand if TWF, plus the beast's reaction attack; meanwhile the beast gets its own single attack, separately.

Attacks each round would be: [ranger], [ranger offhand (optional)], [beast], [beast reaction]

So going from PHB to RR, [ranger or beast] becomes [ranger and beast], and the ranger's extra attack becomes the beast's normal attack. Essentially, you get one more attack per round by using up the beast's reaction.


WSR (Workshop Ranger): The beast's action is predicated on the ranger's bonus action command. This moves back towards the PHB's command economy, rather than the RR's independent pet. This limits TWF because it uses the bonus action.

The independent pet was allowed because the ranger's damage was restricted. If the ranger gets Extra Attack, the pet's damage needs to be restricted in some way.


So, how is this thematically working?

RR is essentially saying that the ranger is always able to command the pet without an explicit action, but is implicitly using up the time that he might otherwise use for Extra Attack in order to do so.

The PHB uses the ranger's main action, and the WSR is using the ranger's bonus action, in order to command the pet. This allows the ranger to keep using Extra Attack.

We know that the PHB version is clumsy and unliked. We don't want to use the primary action. Using the bonus action interferes with TWF, which is a definite downside, as Bjarkmunder points out. I don't think it's truly bad, but it does introduce issues in how we can apply things like the Quarry die.

The RR version simplifies matters a great deal. By removing Extra Attack, we don't need to use an action to command the pet. We also can put more damage bonuses back on the pet, because we're giving up ranger bonuses. That makes proficiency damage and the Quarry die much more tenable.


I would normally move into math now, but I'd rather just ask the simple questions:

How should the pet be commanded? Action command, Bonus Action command, or Free command? What makes it easiest to play with? What hinders playability the least? What's least likely to cause balance issues?

Would you be willing to give up Extra Attack for easier use of the pet? If your pet is not available, would this be too crippling?

How much do you expect the pet to mirror the ranger abilities? Namely, how important is it that the pet get the Quarry bonus? Would it feel too weak without it? Would it undermine the player likelihood to use the pet in other ways?

On the proficiency damage bonus, it's purely mechanical. It just tilts the damage scale, and I see no reason to consider it from a thematic standpoint.

[Kane0]

The others have already covered it well but I'll say my piece anyways

From a DM standpoint, to-hit and damage doesn't matter all that much.

The only reason I want damage to be normalized between builds is that I want the player to have complete freedom in choosing how he builds his ranger, without having to be told by other players he's playing 'the worst build'.

This is why I want the builds to have clear strengths and weaknesses. I don't want to present the players with options that don't work. Why include a shield proficiency if the class doesn't work as intended when using a shield? Why does playing a ranger with a longbow make you feel you are not playing the class as intended? Most of this boils down to weapon choices and bonus actions:

In the grand scheme of things, yes. Finer points of balance are still a good aim but you are right, it's overall a minor problem easily compensated for as long as things aren't skewed by an order of magnitude.

The options are all perfectly viable, there are no traps (that we've spotted so far).

Beastmaster
The Beastmaster can use his bonus action to make the beast attack.
Works well with 2-handed.
Works well with shield.
Doesn't work with TWF.

Using TWF leaves your beast idle and useless.

Beastmaster does work with TWF, you just can't use both bonus actions at the same time. Even if you choose to TWF attack over Beast attack, both of which have situations where they would be better, without a command your beast can still dodge, move and react including acting as a mount.

Hunter
The hunter doesn't have a bonus action that can trigger his Quarry damage.
Works with TWF
Doesn't work with 2-handed
Doesn't work with Shield

This means you need a way to use your bonus action to trigger your Quarry damage. The only way I can see to fix this is to give the Hunter Quick Strike, so he can get that 2d4 Quarry damage using his bonus action.

Not having the fighting style doesn't disable your use of that weapon type. Lacking the FS does not stop a Barbarian from being amazing with a great weapon.
Similarly, not having your bonus action explicitly taken up to do something isn't a design failure. There are many other classes, feats, spells and even magic items that can and will compete for that bonus action, we shouldn't set out to try and block these off as that actually cuts into freedom of builds far worse.

Warden
Doesn't have a a bonus action, limited to Druid spells, has very few spell slots.
Works with TWF
Doesn't work with 2-handed
Doesn't work with Shield.

Again we need to give the Warden some way to utilize his bonus action. I see three options on how to give the Warden similar offensive uses with his bonus action as the Beastmaster and TWF Hunter currently have.[INDENT]

Warden has access to bonus action spells, and at level 10 doubly so.
Same as above, not having an explicit feature does not stop you from using that option, either by other means or just 'less effectively'. Our job is to make that 'less effectively' still worthwhile if not optimal.

There aren't only two possible paths to take (TWF or BM), those just happen to be the optimizer's priority when looking purely at damage numbers. And it's not the ranger doing the heavy lifting, it's the bonus action attack. The same issue is present anywhere you boost your number of attacks by 50%

[Moxxmix]

Back to the math side.

I want to try to keep as few reasonable options to consider as possible. The intent is to not have one configuration that vastly overperforms or underperforms. What I think are reasonable approaches:

1) Revised Ranger (RR) method. Command is free. Beastmaster does not get Extra Attack, but does get Combined Attack.

Pet gets Quarry and Prof damage:

Dueling = 59
Archery = 59
Two-wpn = 68

Pet gets Quarry:

Dueling = 52
Archery = 52
Two-wpn = 61

Pet does not get Quarry or Prof damage:

Dueling = 42
Archery = 42
Two-wpn = 52

In this case, TWF always leads by a pretty sizable margin. Quarry is acceptable. Prof damage works for Dueling and Archery, but is overboard for TWF.


2) Workshop Ranger (WSR) method. Command is a bonus action. Beastmaster gets extra attack.

Pet gets Quarry and Prof damage:

Dueling = 67
Archery = 68
Two-wpn = 57

Pet gets Quarry:

Dueling = 64
Archery = 65
Two-wpn = 53

Pet does not get Quarry or Prof damage:

Dueling = 59
Archery = 60
Two-wpn = 49

Pet is idle:

Dueling = 50
Archery = 51
Two-wpn = 54

In this case, TWF is interfered with, and falls well behind the other options, although it can pull ahead when the pet is idle. Any bonus to pet damage is a bit beyond the limits we wanted, although the boosts per damage type are smaller than in the RR method. WSR jumps 3-5 points per damage boost, while the RR method jumps 8-10 points per damage boost.

The RR approach depends more heavily on the pet in order to do damage. This means the loss of the pet is far more crippling. It also means TWF is far more significant for raising damage overall.

The WSR approach puts more of the power in the hands of the ranger, so loss of a pet isn't as crippling for overall damage. It also suppresses the use of TWF, for the most part, which makes it easier to balance against the other combat styles.

Quarry damage on the offhand attack would be acceptable for Beastmaster to the same degree that it's acceptable for the pet. Offhand damage only because a problem when looking at the Hunter subclass, because there's nothing else competing for that bonus action slot.


All things considered, I think I'd rather leave most of the active combat power in the hands of the ranger, and leave the pet more focused on utility. This does mean we lose a little headroom on the damage side. Thematically, I wouldn't mind the pet getting Quarry damage. The problem is that that pushes the player into a certain type of behavior — they really want the pet attacking the quarry — which I think I would prefer to avoid.

Just like we don't want trap options in the class itself, we don't want trap behaviors. The player should be comfortable sending the pet to attack any target, or collect items, or defend people, or whatever else. Putting the Quarry die on the pet's damage is a big neon sign saying that the designers really want the players to use the pet in a particular way, particularly when it's also forcing the ranger's behavior due to the mechanics of how it's applied. That's a step too far, in my view.

That said, giving the pet the extra Proficiency damage is a little bit better. Proficiency damage will always be a half point less than average Quarry die damage, so it reduces the sample damage by about a point (3 rounds of 0.5, then adjusted for accuracy).

Another possibility is half proficiency. And in fact, the bonus damage barbarian gets for Rage is 1 + half proficiency (rounded down). So that's another option to consider. I kind of like it, as it doesn't shift the damage output too much, but it's an extra bonus to add in to make the pet seem stronger.

Edit:

WSR Pet gets Half+1 prof damage:

Dueling = 61
Archery = 62
Two-wpn = 51

[Kane0]

I'm obviously biased but I agree with Moxxmix, I prefer the bonus action method.

I think I prefer the beast getting Quarry bonus but not proficiency bonus. I know this puts it ahead on the charts but I think that its unique drawbacks are a good balancing factor here.
As far as behaviour, it's subjective and thus hard to tell but I think a combination of the quarry and protection gives incentive to being in the thick of combat more often (as it should be), soaking and/or dealing damage. Works for me.

I also prefer the Hunter without a default use for their bonus action. This leaves an opening to MC, feats, magic items, etc much more freely than the other two. Their damage benefits are in the form of consistency rather than raw increase, and that benefits from TWF as well.

TWF is a bit of a problem in and of itself, it's really strong in the early levels but tapers off sharply at later levels as you get more and more competition for your bonus actions. I have addressed this elsewhere but think it's beyond the scope of this thread.

[Moxxmix]

OK, I wanted another datapoint for comparing damage. I'll stay at level 7 vs AC 18, but using Totem barbarian.

1d10 weapon, no feat, no Rage, no Reckless: 36
1d10 weapon, no feat, Rage, no Reckless: 43
1d10 weapon, no feat, no Rage, Reckless: 53
1d10 weapon, no feat, Rage, Reckless: 63

1d12 weapon, no feat, no Rage, no Reckless: 40
1d12 weapon, no feat, Rage, no Reckless: 47
1d12 weapon, no feat, no Rage, Reckless: 59
1d12 weapon, no feat, Rage, Reckless: 68

1d10 weapon, PAM, no Rage, no Reckless: 49
1d10 weapon, PAM, Rage, no Reckless: 59
1d10 weapon, PAM, no Rage, Reckless: 72
1d10 weapon, PAM, Rage, Reckless: 86

1d12 weapon, GWM, no Rage, no Reckless: 41
1d12 weapon, GWM, Rage, no Reckless: 44
1d12 weapon, GWM, no Rage, Reckless: 70
1d12 weapon, GWM, Rage, Reckless: 76

Aside from the interesting points about how the feats influence the results, we see that the non-feat barbarian can hit damage ratings of 63-68 when using all the class features. Given that the barbarian is primarily about max damage, this gives an idea of how much headroom we have to work with in ranger. Also note that rogue was about 59 when using Sneak Attack 100% of the time.

There's also the point that the barbarian that's not using Reckless Attack is actually kinda weak, statistically. Notably weaker than even the TWF Beastmaster ranger. All things considered, this means that even the limited TWF on the Beastmaster is still within acceptable bounds, and shouldn't be considered a flaw that we "must" correct.

Anyway, we probably want ranger to fall in between rogue and barbarian, so we're largely looking at the area between 60 and 65. Probably want the Beastmaster at the lower end, and the Hunter at the higher end. Current proposed settings (no Quarry pet damage, no Proficiency pet damage) meet the criteria for Beastmaster. I need to go back and look at Hunter, and particularly the impact of TWF, to see if we're OK on that end.


Aside: For the record, PAM+GWM+Rage+Reckless clocks in at 103.

[Moxxmix]

Going back to Hunter, with all the fresh spreadsheet revisions and fixes.


Dueling: 53
Archery: 54
TWF, no Quarry: 57
TWF, Quarry: 65

This is using a d8 weapon for Dueling and Archery, and d6 weapons for TWF. Here we have two separate issues:

1) With no offhand Quarry damage, the three fighting styles are pretty close together, and nothing feels like it overwhelms the others. However with offhand Quarry damage, TWF significantly outperforms the other options.

2) All three options are now significantly behind Beastmaster. The exception is TWF with offhand Quarry damage, but that just makes the other options even worse.


If we assume no offhand Quarry damage, then adding 1-2 damage to all weapon attacks is sufficient to scale things up to the acceptable range.

+1
Dueling: 56
Archery: 58
TWF: 62

+2
Dueling: 59
Archery: 62
TWF: 67

I'd probably choose +1 for balance, given that the barbarian gets closer to the +2 while using a depletable resource, and the ranger isn't expending anything in particular. The Beastmaster has a slightly higher threshold since the pet could be killed, or could be used for actions other than attacking.

But in general, the spread of damage when adding +1 looks like it would work fine. The problem is, how do you give just +1 weapon damage?

Well, let's look back at double Quarry damage dice (instead of best of 2 rolls).

2x Quarry dice
Dueling: 60
Archery: 63
TWF: 65

That actually narrows the gap between the fighting style options while also putting the damage values in the target range. It still puts them in the range of the +2 damage version, which still makes me uncomfortable compared to the barbarian, but it's not a huge deal, and is probably fine for the pre-playtest values.

Beastmaster sample:
wo/pet Quarry: 59
w/pet Quarry: 64


Overall, this ranger feels like it might be overperforming a bit, but at the same time the design is simple and elegant, and it didn't reach this point by trying to pick overpowered options. I'm still concerned we shouldn't be going above 60 damage, as that feels like the ranger is getting into the barbarian damage range without a limited booster like Rage, but I'm fine with letting things stand as they are now for the playtest stage.

Taking another look at scaling per class, as a percentage of baseline (no fighting style, no pet, simple Quarry die, single 1d8 weapon) over 3 rounds.

Duelist Hunter: +40%-45% pretty much across all levels and ACs.
Archery Hunter: +45%-50% against high ACs, and +30%-40% against low ACs, across all levels.
TWF Hunter: +80% during levels 2-4, then +50%-60% for all remaining levels.
Duelist Beastmaster w/pet Quarry damage: +100% for levels 3-4, then +35%-50% for all remaining levels, declining as levels rise.
Duelist Beastmaster wo/pet Quarry damage: +90% for levels 3-4, then +25%-40% for all remaining levels, declining as levels rise.


Currently:
Pets do not get Proficiency damage
Pets get Quarry damage
Hunter gets 2x Quarry dice damage
Quarry only applies to attacks in the Attack action, not to bonus action attacks.

[Fnissalot]

Going back to Hunter, with all the fresh spreadsheet revisions and fixes.


Dueling: 53
Archery: 54
TWF, no Quarry: 57
TWF, Quarry: 65

This is using a d8 weapon for Dueling and Archery, and d6 weapons for TWF. Here we have two separate issues:

1) With no offhand Quarry damage, the three fighting styles are pretty close together, and nothing feels like it overwhelms the others. However with offhand Quarry damage, TWF significantly outperforms the other options.

2) All three options are now significantly behind Beastmaster. The exception is TWF with offhand Quarry damage, but that just makes the other options even worse.


If we assume no offhand Quarry damage, then adding 1-2 damage to all weapon attacks is sufficient to scale things up to the acceptable range.

+1
Dueling: 56
Archery: 58
TWF: 62

+2
Dueling: 59
Archery: 62
TWF: 67

I'd probably choose +1 for balance, given that the barbarian gets closer to the +2 while using a depletable resource, and the ranger isn't expending anything in particular. The Beastmaster has a slightly higher threshold since the pet could be killed, or could be used for actions other than attacking.

But in general, the spread of damage when adding +1 looks like it would work fine. The problem is, how do you give just +1 weapon damage?

Well, let's look back at double Quarry damage dice (instead of best of 2 rolls).

2x Quarry dice
Dueling: 60
Archery: 63
TWF: 65

That actually narrows the gap between the fighting style options while also putting the damage values in the target range. It still puts them in the range of the +2 damage version, which still makes me uncomfortable compared to the barbarian, but it's not a huge deal, and is probably fine for the pre-playtest values.

Beastmaster sample:
wo/pet Quarry: 59
w/pet Quarry: 64


Overall, this ranger feels like it might be overperforming a bit, but at the same time the design is simple and elegant, and it didn't reach this point by trying to pick overpowered options. I'm still concerned we shouldn't be going above 60 damage, as that feels like the ranger is getting into the barbarian damage range without a limited booster like Rage, but I'm fine with letting things stand as they are now for the playtest stage.

Taking another look at scaling per class, as a percentage of baseline (no fighting style, no pet, simple Quarry die, single 1d8 weapon) over 3 rounds.

Duelist Hunter: +40%-45% pretty much across all levels and ACs.
Archery Hunter: +45%-50% against high ACs, and +30%-40% against low ACs, across all levels.
TWF Hunter: +80% during levels 2-4, then +50%-60% for all remaining levels.
Duelist Beastmaster w/pet Quarry damage: +100% for levels 3-4, then +35%-50% for all remaining levels, declining as levels rise.
Duelist Beastmaster wo/pet Quarry damage: +90% for levels 3-4, then +25%-40% for all remaining levels, declining as levels rise.


Currently:
Pets do not get Proficiency damage
Pets get Quarry damage
Hunter gets 2x Quarry dice damage
Quarry only applies to attacks in the Attack action, not to bonus action attacks.

Nice! That looks rather good comparably between the subclasses.

Compared to does numbers wardens would be fine with having hunters mark be either 1d4 or 1d6 a turn. It will then still outperform hunter at level 3-4 but it will be behind after that. Having it as 1d8 per turn, leaves them equal to or above the hunter up to level 8-12 depending on the AC.

Edit:
With double quarry damage, ranged hunters out-damages the current version of swiftquiver if the combat is 3 or less turns long. The swift quiver warden passes the hunter's damage at turn 4. But the damage increase is relatively small since you miss the quarry damage on the turn you activate it and the bonus attacks does not add it.

[Kane0]

1d12 weapon, no feat, no Rage, no Reckless: 40
1d12 weapon, no feat, Rage, no Reckless: 47
1d12 weapon, no feat, no Rage, Reckless: 59
1d12 weapon, no feat, Rage, Reckless: 68

1d12 weapon, GWM, no Rage, no Reckless: 41
1d12 weapon, GWM, Rage, no Reckless: 44
1d12 weapon, GWM, no Rage, Reckless: 70
1d12 weapon, GWM, Rage, Reckless: 76

PAM+GWM+Rage+Reckless clocks in at 103.

Wow, that puts thing in perspective. Less than 15 points variance between the ‘best’ and ‘worst’ options doesnt seem nearly so bad.

[Moxxmix]

Issues with scaling.

Was looking at the barbarian again, and particularly its scaling relative to baseline ranger, and noticed a disturbing trend. Essentially, it was trending towards only about 10% over baseline ranger, even with Rage and Reckless active (though without feats). It gets a bump at level 20 from the +4 Str, but that's not really a fix.

Using a new comparison point: Level 17, target AC 18, +2 weapon. At this point the max Rage damage and the last Brutal Critical are online, so it's near the peak of what barbarian can do.

Baseline Ranger: 94
Duelist Hunter: 137
Archer Hunter: 134
TWF Hunter: 155
Beastmaster (lion): 132

Baseline barbarian (1d10): 67
Rage+Reckless barbarian (1d10): 108
+PAM: 150
+GWM: 140
+PAM+GWM: 199


Basically, a ranger without feats is curbstomping a Raging barbarian without feats (never mind a baseline barbarian), and is competitive with a single powerful feat.

On the issue of scaling, the ranger subclasses are maintaining a pretty level boost over baseline across all levels, generally in the vicinity of +30% to +50%. Barbarian, on the other hand, is not scaling with level. It goes from +50% over ranger baseline at level 5 to +15% at level 19. It's losing about 2.5% per level, relatively speaking. Or ranger is growing 2.5% per level faster than barbarian.

This suggests there's some underlying issue that we need to address. Or maybe that barbarian has a problem.

Let's look at rogue. At level 17, with 100% SA, it's getting a value of 135. That's on par with the ranger. On scaling, it's varying between +25% and +50% over the levels, wobbling up and down as Sneak Attack damage varies. So over all levels, it's roughly on par with the ranger subclasses. That's a relief.

The Champion fighter without any feats is at 99. It's basically on par with baseline ranger at all levels (+/- 10%). It only catches up at level 20, where the 4th attack puts it at +30% to +50%. It improves a bit if I change the weapon from 1d10 to 1d12 (was using 1d10 since it was supposed to be for a PAM comparison), but is still quite weak.

Also, the Champion is just a weak subclass overall. If you consider the Battlemaster instead, it gets 6 d12 Superiority Dice to add to damage every short rest. Even without the rider effects, the Superiority Dice could bring the Battlemaster up to the ranger/rogue range of around 135 (rough estimate) over three rounds.


So in the end:
Fighter: ~135
Rogue: ~135
Ranger: ~135, or 155 with TWF
Barbarian: 108

It's just the barbarian that's broken. Oh, and TWF rears its head again, with the Hunter.

It's honestly rather surprising. Maybe it's balanced against the Berserker? With bonus action attacks and Retaliation, it would be a substantially higher-damage subclass than the Totem. I just hadn't wanted to model it when factoring in exhaustion and enemy attacks.

Fine, let's add Frenzy and Retaliation as options. No feats included, and the damage is over 3 rounds. Retaliation is assumed to occur once per round. Won't consider PAM since the bonus attack conflicts with Frenzy, so also changing over to a 1d12 weapon. Looking at the level 7 and level 17 targets.

Baseline: 68 @7 and 116 @17
Frenzy: 103 @7 and 174 @17
Retaliation: N/A and 174 @17
Frenzy + Retaliation: 103 @7 and 232 @17
Add GWM: 114 @7 and 294 @17

OK, well, there it is. Berserker is where damage has been balanced for the barbarian. And it is massively ahead of the other classes when you use its abilities. That makes me happier, because it means we're no longer banging against barbarian damage with the ranger, which gives us a lot more breathing room.

I am no longer worried about microoptimizations for ranger damage. Although TWF still irritates me.

[Kane0]

I am no longer worried about microoptimizations for ranger damage. Although TWF still irritates me.

And after all that i’m happy to hear it!

I’m still on the lookout for a more engaging capstone, are there any other odds and ends that could be improved?

[Bjarkmundur]

Are there any other odds and ends that could be improved?

Minor phrasing issues.

Once on your turn, after making an attack against a creature you can see, you may designate that creature as your Quarry for your next attack. This effect ends and the end of your next turn, or when you mark another creature as your quarry.

Starting at 6th level, when a creature marked as your Quarry hits you with an attack or targets you with an effect that has you making a saving throw, you can use your reaction to either reduce the damage taken or gain a bonus to your saving throw equal to the result of your Quarry die.

[Moxxmix]

I can manage the editing pass. I'm writing up the details in a Word doc, and can export that to PDF, looking fairly similar to the Revised Ranger version. Just focus on making sure the details are what we want them to be.

[Jaxby]

Doing a quick look through the class as it stands now I noticed the following:

Nature's Boon (2)
At level 2 and again at levels 9 and 17 Choose one from the options below:

Originally the feature let you choose an option and upgrade it at lvl 17, whereas now, you only pick one option at lvl 17. Apart from the clean feature description, is this on purpose? Giving you 3 options in total instead of a total of 4?

Bestial Fury (10)
Your beasts attacks are considered magical for the purposes of overcoming damage resistance and immunity. In addition, your beast companion gains the following ability:
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.

Beast's Defense (14)
When your beast uses its Defensive Pounce ability your beast companion also gains resistance to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage until the start of your next turn.

So we landed on the "aura" for the companion? Or is it an action to defensively pounce? If it's an aura, is the resistance to damage always on? If it's an action, what is the use of the resistance, since the beast is not getting targeted?

Primal Awareness (3)

Primal Assault (10)

Primeval Ward (14)

Maybe we should find another name for one or two of the features. So it's not all "primal". Also, we still need a name for Nature's Boon.

[Kane0]

Originally the feature let you choose an option and upgrade it at lvl 17, whereas now, you only pick one option at lvl 17. Apart from the clean feature description, is this on purpose? Giving you 3 options in total instead of a total of 4?

That was intentional, I figured it was being too generous. This way you end up with either all the basic abilities with one improvement or two improved abilities and miss out on the third.

So we landed on the "aura" for the companion? Or is it an action to defensively pounce? If it's an aura, is the resistance to damage always on? If it's an action, what is the use of the resistance, since the beast is not getting targeted?

That wording of Defensive pounce was lifted straight out of the UA Artificer's Iron Defender with '5 feet' swapped for 'reach', it uses the beast's reaction.
The resistance is applied to the beast in this way for three reasons:
1: Putting it on the creature it's defending would be less useful because of the disadvantage imposed (we want the feature to actually feel good)
2: Once the beast uses its reaction to protect someone, thus annoying the attacker, they increase the chances they will get hit, and they are on average more fragile than a PC (we want the beast to last long enough to do its job)
3: Because the resistance can last up to a whole round it incentivises the beast to use the protection on someone else as early as possible in order to protect itself as well (behavioural reinforcement!)

Maybe we should find another name for one or two of the features. So it's not all "primal". Also, we still need a name for Nature's Boon.

I don't mind Nature's Boon as a name but as i've said, names are actually one of the hardest parts of homebrewing. Taking all suggestions!

Minor phrasing issues.

Ah yes, will fix that up. Quarry is supposed to last for more than one hit though.

[Moxxmix]

I thought of "Call of the Wild" as an alternative to Beastcall (as a nod to Jack London's novel), but then I'm not sure what to use for "Greater Beastcall". Maybe wrap it up as a level modifier in the original feature, rather than have two features? (Sort of like how Nature's Boon got collapsed.) It sort of hides the 18th level feature, but meh.

Regarding beast companions: Do we want to use the RR features that assume the beast has proficiency in all saving throws, and grant two skill proficiencies of the player's choice? At present, almost no beasts have any saving throw proficiencies, and almost none have skills outside of Perception and Stealth.

I've written this ranger up in a Word doc, but I'm severely lacking in the descriptive fluff. Anyone want to take a stab at writing a long description of the class as a whole, or short descriptions of each subclass? I'll poke around and see what I can do myself, but the more voices the better, here. (For reference, here's how it currently looks.)

I've used "Conclaves" (from the RR text) rather than the generic "Archetypes" (from the PHB when they didn't have anything more creative) for the subclasses. If anyone has an issue with this, let me know.

Misc thoughts:

Nature's Boon: Healing Salves and Camouflage are both very strong choices. Land's Stride feels... weak. It's potentially useful as a tactical choice, but it's one of those things that's easy to lose if the GM doesn't make use of it. On the other hand, invisibility and healing are useful no matter what, and the tier 2 versions are even better. I'd probably want to add a bit to the Land's Stride to make it more of a tempting choice. Perhaps +10' movement speed? Feather Fall like monk? (Where can I get my Batman-approved grappling hook? >.> ) ... Oohhhh.. Level 2 can give you temp flight speed, like the level 14 Eagle Totem on barbarian (grappling hooks, vines, chandeliers, etc). Lots of options, now that I think of it.


Feral Senses: What was the motivation for changing how this worked, compared to the PHB? Removing the ability to gain advantage on the ranger negates a large chunk of rogue Sneak Attack, which feels like a stronger bonus than the PHB version, particularly as there's no range limit. The PHB version seemed like it should have worked fine.


Defensive Pounce: The OP doesn't specify whether this is an action or a reaction. You said you pulled it from the alchemist UA, and in there it's a reaction. I'll designate it as a reaction for now, but let me know if it's not. -- Edit: Realized the above post noted it as a reaction, so that's settled.

[Jaxby]

That was intentional, I figured it was being too generous. This way you end up with either all the basic abilities with one improvement or two improved abilities and miss out on the third.

If you get to choose an option 3 times, you cannot end up with all the basic abilities and one improvement. Or two abilities fully improved. You can get all the basic options, or two options, with one improvement. Just checking that this is what you intend.

Nature's Boon: Healing Salves and Camouflage are both very strong choices. Land's Stride feels... weak. It's potentially useful as a tactical choice, but it's one of those things that's easy to lose if the GM doesn't make use of it.

I guess you are right that it is somewhat DM dependent, but I also feel free movement is quite a powerful feature. At my table, there have been many fights in difficult terrain, and often the monsters ignore it, because it's their home turf (broadly speaking). Here it is maybe better to ignore difficult terrain than to bonus hide. Which also is somewhat DM dependent, as there needs to be things to hide behind/in.

I also think that the ranger's movement buffs should mostly free him of restrictions, whereas extra movement might be the monks niche.

Speaking of monks; there's a good batman class.

[Bjarkmundur]

5ft movement speed seems fair, or advantage to escaping (non-magical?) grapples and restraints.

[Fnissalot]

I guess you are right that it is somewhat DM dependent, but I also feel free movement is quite a powerful feature. At my table, there have been many fights in difficult terrain, and often the monsters ignore it, because it's their home turf (broadly speaking). Here it is maybe better to ignore difficult terrain than to bonus hide. Which also is somewhat DM dependent, as there needs to be things to hide behind/in.

I also think that the ranger's movement buffs should mostly free him of restrictions, whereas extra movement might be the monks niche.

Speaking of monks; there's a good batman class.

I like the grappling hook idea!

Upgraded Land's stride could also give
As a bonus action, you fly up to 10 feet without provoking opportunity attacks; you fall if you end your turn in the air and nothing else is holding you aloft.

[Kane0]

You can get all the basic options, or two options, with one improvement. Just checking that this is what you intend.

Erm yes, a little embarrassing considering I wrote it lol. Pulled a Misremembering Mearls there.
Though I will of course gather feedback and change it if it's deemed too weak. Might also be worth considering changing back if we introduce more at a later date.

5ft movement speed seems fair.

If people are for it yes, 5' for regular and another 5' for improved. Votes for and against?

Regarding beast companions: Do we want to use the RR features that assume the beast has proficiency in all saving throws, and grant two skill proficiencies of the player's choice? At present, almost no beasts have any saving throw proficiencies, and almost none have skills outside of Perception and Stealth.

I've used "Conclaves" (from the RR text) rather than the generic "Archetypes" (from the PHB when they didn't have anything more creative) for the subclasses. If anyone has an issue with this, let me know.

Feral Senses: What was the motivation for changing how this worked, compared to the PHB? Removing the ability to gain advantage on the ranger negates a large chunk of rogue Sneak Attack, which feels like a stronger bonus than the PHB version, particularly as there's no range limit. The PHB version seemed like it should have worked fine.

Ah yes, will add in a bit about beast saves and skills.

I like the sound of Clade actually, sounds more about classification and less about gatherings.

I wanted Feral Senses to compete with the Rogue's Blindsense. If it does turn out to be too strong then we can scale it back again. Rogues cant still get sneak attack off via a friend, just not using advantage.

[Jaxby]

If people are for it yes, 5' for regular and another 5' for improved. Votes for and against?
----snip----
I wanted Feral Senses to compete with the Rogue's Blindsense. If it does turn out to be too strong then we can scale it back again. Rogues cant still get sneak attack off via a friend, just not using advantage.

I guess the +5/+5 is fine. A wood elf monk/ranger multi class would start getting pretty fast. I don't see how you would explain flying movement fluff-wise though, so I don't think we should add that to the bonus. You can jump pretty much the same distance anyway.

With the new Feral Sense, you can still get advantage on the ranger, just not from being unseen.

Edit: Naming suggestions for the Warden features:

Primal Awareness (3)
I picture this as the ranger sensing slight tremors in the earth from the movement of monsters or herds of cattle. So how about calling it "tremors of the world roots" or "Earth tremors" or some such? Though it should probably have a word to do with sensing in there. Not tremor-sense...

Primal Assault (10)
Seeing as it is a quickening of a spell, and the ranger is about landscapes, what about "Ley Flow" or "Ley Alignment"? This is ofc a nod towards Ley Lines, drawing upon mysticism, landscape and ancient times.

Primeval Ward (14)
I think this is nice, as it resembles the inspirational source, primordial ward, but is not called quite the same, hence not doing quite the same.

[Moxxmix]

If people are for it yes, 5' for regular and another 5' for improved. Votes for and against?

Hmm. Sounds reasonable. I wouldn't mind something flashier, but it works as a solid, no-fuss, always-on benefit, even if difficult terrain never comes up.

Ah yes, will add in a bit about beast saves and skills.

Doing a review of beasts, I see that there are a fair number that have no skills at all, or only one skill.

You've updated it to say:

Add your proficiency bonus to the beast’s AC and attack rolls, as well as to all saving throws and any skills it is proficient in. If the beast is not proficient in any skills it gains proficiency in two of Athletics, Acrobatics, Perception, Stealth and Survivial.

I kinda want to suggest Performance (dancing bear!), but that would be a bit silly. Intimidation might be legitimate, though. Almost all animals have a -2 (sometimes -3) Cha, though, so it starts to fall into the usual problem of using the Intimidation skill (such as the 20 Str barbarian with Cha as a dump stat). I think I'd still allow it, though. A crocodile that can't intimidate (-3 Cha) feels silly.

Anyway, on the actual skills granted, as currently stated, beasts without any skills get 2, but beasts with 1 skill stay at 1, and beasts with 2 skills keep what they have. I'd be inclined to suggest instead that all beasts get one additional skill of the player's choice. 0 goes to 1, 1 goes to 2, and 2 goes to 3. Must be selected out of that set you provided, and perhaps Intimidation as well.

I like the sound of Clade actually, sounds more about classification and less about gatherings.

Works well enough for me. Updated to that.

I wanted Feral Senses to compete with the Rogue's Blindsense. If it does turn out to be too strong then we can scale it back again. Rogues cant still get sneak attack off via a friend, just not using advantage.

Hmm. Not sure I see how it's competing with Blindsense, but can leave it for now.

[Fnissalot]

Doing a review of beasts, I see that there are a fair number that have no skills at all, or only one skill.

You've updated it to say:

I kinda want to suggest Performance (dancing bear!), but that would be a bit silly. Intimidation might be legitimate, though. Almost all animals have a -2 (sometimes -3) Cha, though, so it starts to fall into the usual problem of using the Intimidation skill (such as the 20 Str barbarian with Cha as a dump stat). I think I'd still allow it, though. A crocodile that can't intimidate (-3 Cha) feels silly.

Anyway, on the actual skills granted, as currently stated, beasts without any skills get 2, but beasts with 1 skill stay at 1, and beasts with 2 skills keep what they have. I'd be inclined to suggest instead that all beasts get one additional skill of the player's choice. 0 goes to 1, 1 goes to 2, and 2 goes to 3. Must be selected out of that set you provided, and perhaps Intimidation as well.

I would add insight and intimidation to the list. Having a pet that can smell when someone is lying would be neat!

To give them one additional skill proficiency seems like the best way to do it? Would it be too much to give them a save at a later point as well?

[Moxxmix]

I would add insight and intimidation to the list. Having a pet that can smell when someone is lying would be neat!

Lying cat!

To give them one additional skill proficiency seems like the best way to do it? Would it be too much to give them a save at a later point as well?

You mean give them a second? I'm not sure. It would be a reasonable progress expectation, but at the same time the ranger can technically change the pet's skill any time they call a new beast (such as at 7 and 14, plus any deaths). I suppose it depends on how that interacts.

[Kane0]

Alrighty then. I've updated some names, the stride boon and the beast's skill wording