Just got my PHB. There's some things I really like (Advantage/Disadvantage, the Concentration system to limit buff stacking and some of the spellcasting excesses) and some things I really don't like (martial classes are a huge step back from 4e in terms of having interesting things to do and being effective in their chosen roles).
But one thing that jumped out at me is just how awful the Ranger Beastmaster is. How awful, you ask? Well, let's find out together!
Assume a level 11 ranger Beastmaster, so that the pet has gotten all of it's core archetype feature buffs. You are limited to beasts of CR 1/4 or lower. Let's take a panther! This uber buff panther has 44 HP (4x Ranger level), an AC of 16, and +8 to hit. By sacrificing one of your two attacks, you can order your beast to attack twice (Note: the text doesn't say whether it can take reactions, but let's assume it can at least take OAs.) Let's have it bite twice! It will do 2x 1d6+6 damage (1d6+2 base, +4 because you can add your proficiency bonus.) It can pounce to knock an enemy prone, although the save DC is low and doesn't increase.
Meanwhile, a level 11 druid has level 6 spells, which means it can cast Conjure Fey, which lets you summon a CR 6 beast. There are no CR 6 beasts in the Horde of the Dragon Queen supplement, but the wyvern is CR 6, so that should be in the same ballpark. The wyvern has 110 HP (nearly 3x the panther), an AC of 13, and +7 to hit. It attacks twice a round: once at either 2d6+4 or 2d8+4 (beak or claws), and once with its tail (2d6+4, save vs DC 15 CON or take 7d6 poison). This spell requires concentration, and broken concentration turns the wyvern hostile, which is definitely a drawback. On the other hand, it's ridiculously superior to the panther. The druid can keep on casting other (non-concentration) spells while the wyvern runs in and wrecks things, at only the cost of one spell slot.
But a sixth-level slot sounds awful pricy, and I'm scared of the wyvern turning against me, you say! Well, for just the cost of a fifth level slot, a druid can cast the third level spell Conjure Animals and get not one, but TWO CR 2 beasts. Again, no CR 2 beasts in the HotDQ doc, but a griffon is CR 2 and pretty beast-like, so let's use that. A griffon has AC 12 and 59 HP - notably easier to hit, but over 25% more HP. +6 to hit (not as good as our panther), two attacks for 1d8+4 and 2d6+4, notably higher than the panther. Unlike the wyvern, the griffon loves us and will never turn on us, even if we lose concentration.
Oh, and once again, there are TWO OF THEM. And we're still a druid with tons of other spell slots.
Also note: The only damage increase your buff panther gets is from your increasing proficiency bonus, so at level 20, your panther (still a panther) will only be doing 1d6+8 damage per hit. Except not even that, because most of the enemies you'll be facing will be resistant to non-magical weapons, and your panther never gets its attacks counted as magical for those purposes.
How to fix this? A couple of thoughts:
- Let rangers attract gradually increasing CR levels of beasts for their pets, or let their pets 'grow' along with the ranger.
- Make the pet's attacks count as magical for terms of overcoming resistance to non-magical physical damage at higher levels
In short: a class whose entire gimmick is centered around one thing should not be outshined and objectively outclassed at that one thing by a mid-level spell.
I think you may be misinterpreting the action economy.
Don't have the book on me. However, I believe the animal companion gets it's own turn (either on the Ranger's initiative or it's own). In addition to that, the Ranger can use their bonus action to direct the animal to attack or move.
Kinda how the mount rules go.
bawylie wrote:
Verklemptomaniac wrote:
Verklemptomaniac wrote:
There may be some better options once the MM is out as well; of course that boosts summons too.
The beast can take it's own reaction, bonus action, and move.
It only cannot take an action without command.
At level 7, it can give you advantage (help), while you make 2 attacks.
At level 11, it can make 2 attacks, and possibly give you advantage (prone), while you make 1 attack.
At level 15, you both can run around with stone skin.
It also provides ultility, such as scouting and special senses.
And ranger's get their own spells.
Not saying it's great, but not quite as bad as your make it out to be.
You're talking about an "always on" feature vs. a spell which costs a spell slot AND concentration. They really shouldn't be even. The ranger's beast companion could probably stand to be beefed up, but I don't think it's as weak as you're making it out to be.
To be fair, the Ranger can also use imagination and roleplaying to help to close the gap.
My favourite option is how at level 7 you can have your beast Help as a bonus action. So you can attack the same creature and attack with advantage pretty much at-will.
Conjured monsters last an hour. So a druid can have animals for two or three hours at most and cannot cast any buffs at that time, and has to be worried about taking a hit.
souldoubt wrote:
Bring a cute plushie toy your pet type to the table.
Use it to help illustrate your pet's awesome and adorable actions.
Squeeze the head or neck to make it's nose twitch.
Watch everyone get super-jealous that none of their class abilities grant cute, twitchy noses
Ok... druid wildshape does.... damn those OP Moon Druids.
Illithidbix wrote:
Verklemptomaniac wrote:
bawylie wrote:
I wonder if it's part of the ongoing stratergy against Drizzt Clones.
"Ok you can play a Drow, but you have disadvantage on attack rolls when you're in direct sunlight!"
"Sure, you can duel wield scimitars... but they only do D6 damage like a short sword! Not D8 like a longsword.... and no you don't have Critical Threat bonus!"
"You can play a duel wielding ranger... with a panther pet... but Beastmaster sucks!"
MAHAHA!
(Technically Guenhwyvar was from an onyx figurine but eh we'll let Drizzt be a Hunter Ranger)
souldoubt wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Summoned pets are one fight only, subject to dispelling or concenration breaking. Ranger pet is always around, can get barding, and (imo) should get hd healing and 3 death saves like a pc. The druid is the main summoner in 5e, so yeah, its gonna be pretty sweet in this area. The ranger though has most of those same summoning spells too. Pet gets a bunch of roleplaying coolness, if your halfling/gnome you can ride your pet, which should be fun (mounted combat fest, force attack to target you instead of pet). Sentinel feat ranger plus pet = lots of free reaction attacks. I think ranger pets probably are a touch UP on the face ot if, but there are out of combat uses like scouting, guarding, etc too. I suspect in a minmaxed game a pet ranger will be a little UP in combat, but in most games he should be perfectly fine.
Rangers can also cast summoning spells, and many of the potential companions have multiattack or possible additional effects (such as knockdown) on their attacks. Most also have superior movement and perception capabilities.
A Ranger, of whatever archetype, generally isn't going to be doing as much dmage in combat as say, a Fighter. Of course a Fighter is far inferior to a ranger when it comes to exploration and similar activities of course.
Xetheral wrote:
Verklemptomaniac wrote:
The Hit Dice and death saves mechanic are something I'll consider. I have never followed through on an animal companion in actual play, because I'm such a wuss about sending my companion to certain death. Giving it better odds of survival, instead of having a revolving cast of meat shields, immediately gives the option more traction with me.
The real question is can we leverge the level 15 ability to do some fun shinnanigans....
Like casting magic jar...
Though, the issue is that you need to cast it on yourself... 
Answer is hilariously useless. The fact that 4 class level bonuses are inferior to a spell slot never should have happened. Lets repeat that so it sinks in... FOUR CLASS LEVELS.
The worst part you didn't really highlight. This pet is going to fall over dead in the first fight of the day, if not from a direct attack then from an AE.
Without giving it evasion like 3E's ranger pets or making it effectively unkillable like 4E's shaman pets they've ignored all the lessons learned over the years in RPGs on what needs to be done to make a pet useable. Sadly par for the course with 5E's crusade to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
mellored wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
It isn't far to compare to two different class abilities in isolation and in utterly specific conditions.
Yes, one of the 11th-level druid's 6th-level spell slots might be more powerful than a low-level ranger's ability in some type of arena fight. However, it is trivial to change your assumption and have a situation where the ranger's companion is better. Easy examples....
* 3rd-level. Druid can't summon anything. Survival at lower-levels has a massive advantage over possible higher level power.
* You are asleep in camp, travern, etc.
* You don't have any higher level spellslots available because you've used them previously, needed to cast another spell, or where unable to rest the previous night.
* You are on a long overland journey and want to ensure the way ahead is scouted.
* You are grappled, held, silenced, blinded, etc. at the beginning of the combat and are not able to cast spells.
* Your oponent has dispell magic, counter spelling, banishment, or other abilities which will nerf your summons in an instant.
* Your oponents target you with repeated attacks causing you to break concentration.
* You need to keep up another spell which requires concentration or cast a spell after summoning which requires concentration.
* You are in a tavern fight or city in which magic is not permitted.
* Your foes turned out to be an illusion, the bad guy teleported away, etc. and you just wasted one of your high level spell slots.
* You want to intimidate some lower-level folks without blowing spells.
* You want to leave something behind to guard something, deliver a message, drag a rope up to someone, etc. without blowing major spells.
* You want to be stealthy and yet perform some simple task, such as fetching something, carrying a potion to another party member, etc.
etc., etc.
It isn't hard to come up with cases when the animal companion is arguable better. The companion is certainly more versitile in many cases. Somethng permanent typically is.
Verklemptomaniac wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Illithidbix wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Leugren wrote:
I learned the word "vapid" from this thread. Thanks Leugren!
Also, nothing stops your GM for homebrewing an awesome monster for you once DMG comes out.
If the companion was "A max CR 25% of your level, rounded down" would that fix this? Obviously without the MM we won't know what that change would fully mean, but seems like it might be the kind of fix people are looking for?
Mistwell wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Verklemptomaniac wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Ravenmancer wrote:
Orzel wrote:
kalil wrote:
I think maybe the beastmaster animal companion should almost go the way of the shaman and be a spirit companion as its going to be dieing alot unless you keep it away from danger, then it will just be useless.
I dunno. Some companions can be pretty good. Getting your proficiency bonus to attacks and damage rolls can be really nice on carefully chosen companions.
Take the stirge for instance. At 3rd level it has a +7 attack, which is really high. It deals 1d4+5 damage, and then another 1d4+5 the next round without using an action.
You can also have fun with adding bonus damage to poison with the giant poisonous snake, flying snake, or giant wolf spider. Grappling creatures are also nice; even if the escape DC is low it still takes an action to escape.
If a Halfling ranger can have a pteranadon (e.g. in Eberron), they have a decent mount (180 lbs carrying capcity) that flies.
Unfortunately Multiattack companions don't seem to work well, since the rules specify you can order it to take the Attack action and the Multiattack action appears to be distinct.
I just wish it was more open to weapon options (two-handed, thank you), and, if I am running a traditional Greyhawk campaign, the class is human and some kind of good, only.
Animal companion AC is on par with PC AC, and actually probably better than most Pc's at high levels (wolves max at 19 AC and 20 is the limit without magic). They might have lower health, but they can work on that. Place them next to an enemy and just have them Dodge, they are attacked at disadvantage but still offer Opportunity Attacks if the enemy moves.
Also, a lot of people seem to agree on giving the companion 3 saves and stabilizing like PC's do.
Chaosmancer wrote:
pet with barding is going to have one of the best ACs in the game, isnt it?
Animal companions don't work well with 2 weapon fighting because at 7th level you are need to use your bonus action to command the companion to attack, and you thus can't use that bonus action to attack with your off hand weapon. That's kind of ironic, because 2 weapon fighting is one of the iconic ranger fighting styles. If Drizzt were fighting along side his panther Guenhwyvar, he could only get 1 scimitar attack in per round and would have to choose between icingdeath and twinkle.
BW0222 wrote:
demon_idol wrote:
demon_idol wrote:
Inaubryyn wrote:
Ravenmancer wrote:
demon_idol wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
demon_idol wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Your basically just trading one of your attacks for a beast companion attack, which has trade-offs, different damage but adds some effect. So, all in all, the same number of attacks are made, just differently. If may be different DPR than your normal attack, but again, it usually gets an effect too; and you only use it when you choose to.
It's also interesting to note, that though the animal has much lower HP than a PC, its still more HP in the fight than there was before. If you think of the animal as an extension of the PC, the PC is getting extra HP. (Though not exactly)
FYI I asked Jeremy Crawford about ranger's beast companion OA on twitter;
@Plaguescarred Can a ranger's beast companion take reaction and make opportunity attack? -
@JeremyECrawford I would rule that the beast can make an opportunity attack.
If you still think beastmasters are underpowered, and are willing to houserule, then I suggest allowing the beast to continue attacking the same target w/o needing the ranger's action again. You would need the ranger's action to have the beast target a new creature though.
Is this a correct reading?
RAW, I'm reading the beastmaster as unable to use two-weapon fighting when he's used his action to command the beast. This is because he doesn't use the Attack action. He uses his action to command the beast. If he has Extra Attack feat, the command-the-beast action rule says he can also take a single attack when he uses his action to command the beast to take the Attack action. The beast is taking the Attack action, but the ranger is not. Thus two-weapon fighting rules can not be used to get an extra off-hand attack.
Wuzzard wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Eh, beastmasters are fine. They have the typical non-caster issue where they have longevity rather than powerful burst capability, but it's all within the meaningful range of contribution for a player character.
So a few months later what is the feeling once we have played with them? The ranger in my party took beastmaster but since they die so quickly and that puts the pet out of the game for at least 8 hours he is scared to use it too offensively at all. Is this intended?
So far they dont last very long at mid-level combat.
I played one at 4th level for a couple of sessions. 6-8? He was fine.
The only changes I would make are to increase size to large and CR to 1/2 but I'm not that concerned with it. Combat is not the only measure of utility. Allowing large size opens up a decent mount though. While CR 1/2 allows wider variety. Expansion of power isn't too far. Bout the same really.
My only thing with the beastmaster ranger is the selection of creatures. I used the DMG to make a monster that I liked. Maybe your DMs will let you use it.
Here is a companion I want to build for Rangers and a decent wild shape for low-level land Druids.
Reference...DMG, pg 274
Quick Stats
CR1/8 Stat block
PB +2 AC 13 HP 7-35 AB +3 DPR 2-3 SDC 13
My monster Adjustments
PB +2 AC 14 HP 17 AB +4 DPR 8 SDC 13
Defensive Challange Rating(DCR) = 1/8
Offensive Challenge Rating(OCR) = 1/2
Average Challenge Rating (ACR) = 1/4
Stats
Greater Pangolin
Medium Beast, Unaligned
AC - 14 (10+1+3 Natural+Dexterity)
HP - 17 (3d8+3)
Speed 25 ft., climb 20 ft., burrow 5 ft.
ST: 11 (+0) DX: 16(+3) CON: 13 (+1) INT: 4 (-3) WS: 14(+2) CHA: 5(-3)
Damage Resistances non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing (Effective hit points 34)
Skills: Athletics +2, Perception +4, Stealth +5
Senses: Darkvision 20ft., passive Perception 14
Languages -
CR: 1/4 (50 XP)
Keen Smell. The pangolin has advantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on smell.
Actions
Claw: Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5ft., one target.
Hit: 8 (2d4+3) slashing damage
Tail: Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5ft., one target
Hit: 6 (1d6+3) bludgeoning damage. If the target is a creature, it must succeed on a DC 13 Strength saving throw or be knocked prone.
Brillant, thanks guys. I think I'll allow the beast to become large at a certain level. Ala WoW where the hunter pet gets incrementally larger as you level up.
Miladoon wrote:
solomani wrote:
Remove shared actions from the game.
I read and re-read the Beastmaster Ranger in the PHB many times. I kept feeling like I was missing something, but this thread has confirmed it–the Beastmaster was not designed as well as it should have been.
Sharing Actions
Why are we still using this irritating mechanic from 4e?
Ranger (pointing to the troll): "Darkfang, kill the troll!"
Ranger (second round): "Darkfang, bite him again!"
Ranger (third round): "Darkfang, do it again!"
Ranger (fourth round, if his wolf is still alive): "Darkfang, keep it up!"
By the end of the adventure, the ranger's companions are going to kick him out of the party just so they don't have to hear him shouting the same command to his wolf over and over again like a madman.
"Is your wolf's memory so bad that he forgets your commands every 6 seconds?"
Of course, as soon as the ranger encounters a band of gnolls commanding hyenas, he is going to ask, "why aren't those gnolls spending their actions to have their hyenas attack?" To this, the DM must reply, "well, that's just how the game's rules are written for the sake of balance," (suspension of disbelief and immersion into the fantasy world breaks here).
Ranger: "So, I should just switch to being a hunter ranger, wheel around caged wild animals, and then unleash them upon enemies while firing arrows from on top of rocks/tree branches? Since I have no control over wild wolves, I don't have to spend my actions telling them to attack."
Solution: The ranger only has to spend his action once to issue a command, and the beast keeps carrying out its same task (killing that troll) until the ranger spends an action to redirect the animal to a new target (because why the hell would a wolf stop attacking that troll after his master ordered him to kill it?). Or if you want to embrace the sheer crazy power of 3.5e
" /> , the ranger can issue one command per round as a free action (or "non-action" or "speech limit per round" or whatever it's called in 5e).
CR 1/4 Creature
3rd Level
Ranger: "This is my wolf, Darkfang!"
Wizard: "Fearsome! I just learned Melf's Acid Arrow!"
5th level
Ranger: "Darkfang is still by my side!"
Wizard: "Well, at least he's faithful. I just learned Fireball!"
7th level
Ranger: "Darkfang is still here!"
Wizard: "Maybe you should retire that poor wolf. Why don't you bond with and train that dire wolf?
Ranger: "I can't."
Wizard: "That makes no sense and is disappointing. Anyhow, I just learned Greater Invisibility!"
13th level
Wizard: "I have finally mastered the secret of conjuring Mordenkainen's Sword!"
Ranger: "Here comes Darkfang!"
Wizard: "That cannot truly be the same wolf."
Ranger: "Actually, I have gone through fourteen Darkfangs."
Wizard: "You know, I could just call and bind a stronger beast to you. What would you like? A celestial lion? A hell hound? How about a winter wolf?"
Ranger: "But, I want it to be a companion I gained on my own!"
Fighter: "You realize you can just hire mercenaries, right?"
Solution: The ranger can select more fierce beasts upon reaching higher levels. For example ...
Ranger Level Animal Companion (examples)
5 CR 1/2 (ape, black bear, crocodile, giant goat, reef shark)
7 CR 1 (brown bear, dire wolf, giant toad, tiger)
9 CR 2 (giant boar, giant constrictor snake, hunter shark, rhinoceros)
13 CR 3-4 (ankylosaurus, elephant, giant scorpion, killler whale)
17 CR 5-6 (giant crocodile, giant shark, mammoth, triceratops)
I understand that the features from your subclass are lesser in comparison to those of your actual class, but the animal companion feature underwhelms and irritates. Do beastmaster rangers a favor and give them a respectable solution to their honest desire to enjoy their subclass.
I allow the Beastmaster to use bonus action to give commands and allow the previous rounds action for no action cost.
My solution...
Revivify beast (level 2 ranger spell).
Cast Time: 1 minute.
Range: Touch
Material: Some herbs worth 10g (+5g per spell level) which are consumed.
A target beast that has been killed within the past hour is restored to 1 hit point.
At higher level: At level 3 the spell regenerates missing parts. At level 4 you only need a scrap of fur, fang, or other small peice of the body, which can be taken before the beast dies. At level 5 you can cast it as an action.
Possibly a few other beast related spells, but that's the key one that seems to be missing.
What does that even mean? The bonus action to give commands I get, but what does allowing the previous rounds actions at no cost mean?
Shared actions are used because in 3e bonded creatures got way the frack out of hand and wizards has had trouble figuring out how to fix the problem. Admittedly this tends to hurt the ranger more than the classes that were actually causing the problem *coughmagescough* because they are the iconic beast masters and wizards uses them as the proving gorund for each editions new pet rules. This is especially problematic in this attempt because 5e has a bad habit of using monster entries as player resources which we know doesn't end well. Furthermore it's even sloppier about it than 3e was, which is saying something. To make beast master, or something like beastmaster, work you pretty much have to build the pet from the ground up for the class. 13th age for example builds the creature form scratch for the ranger class, and between the games own simplicity and the limits on the beastie keeps the thing simple without having to play weird games with the action economy. Of course the 13th age ranger also pays a hefty price for the creature which may be a bit of a limiting factor with the 5e ranger since the sub-classes are somewhat limited.
rampant wrote:
That could be a bit problematic, better make sure the critter acts during/after the ranger's turn.
So far the Ranger keeps up with everyone and is not sub par though at higher levels that may change.
rampant wrote:
I'm actually wondering if the Ranger's proficiency bonus would modify the trip and pounce DCs. They seem very much like the Shoving a Creature attack option, but utilising a save like spells do instead of a contested roll as would normally be done, likely because they are NPCs/monsters.
The wolf has a strength of 12 and a trip DC of 11, while the panther has a strength of 14 and trip/pounce DC of 12. If it's like spellcasting save DCs this would be 8 + proficiency bonus + strength modifier. This would make an 11th level ranger's wolf pet have a trip DC of 13, and a panther pet would have a save DC of 14. At 11th level the pets also get two attacks when commanded (which makes me think of Ash with Pikachu, even moreso with the Conjure Animals and Woodland Beings spells they get). This would make it scale up with level ensuring their usefulness without making them overly powerful, as they're also not a full second character like 3rd edition animal companions were.
This is at least how I'm going to treat them in my game, as I plan on throwing a Beastmaster Ranger as an enemy to the PCs at some point.
Out of curiousity. What would be the best way to play a beastmaster, following the rules as written?
Does your companion typically attack every round? (taking one of your attacks every round)
Is it a useful strategy to place the companion strategically to disturb a caster or archer without attacking each round?
Is it a useful strategy to place the companion close to an enemy that is likely to move gaining a free attack of opportunity?
How often does your companion die?
bob_goes_up wrote:
Gnome and Hafling Beastmaster Rangers can use their companion as a mount, and it will be more durable than most mounts they would generally be able to get their hands on. A vulture (given its size I assume the stats provided are for condors, as most other vultures are smaller than eagles, seen here, condor size comp with a wolf seen here) would make an excellent mount for a small sized ranger who relies on using a bow, as it's a medium beast with a fly speed of 50 ft, though it can only carry 105 lbs. A mule/donkey is also medium sized, but counts as large sized for carrying capacity, so makes for an excellent pack animal for carrying extra gear and treasure, and will be quite willing to venture into dangerous dungeons with the party without fleeing. If you don't need a pack animal underground and want a different utility animal, a giant fire beetle could be useful as it provides some illumination (though it could also be a problem if such attracks enemies). Giant frogs also make for useful mounts for small size characters as they have a good jumping distance and can swim.
You can also have the beast go adjacent to enemies to help out allies who benefit from a friendly critter being next to the enemy, such as for the Rogue's sneak attack, even without having the beast make any attacks. You could also have the beast use barding to increase its AC even further, making it a decent tank in combat. If you take a baboon as the companion you could give it normal armor and a weapon (if your DM allows it); while it is untrained and so doesn't use its own proficiency bonus on attacks, it also has pack tactics so gains advantage if one of its allies (the party members or the ranger themselves) is within 5 ft of the creature and isn't incapacitated. A level 3 ranger ranger with a baboon companion that wears scale mail and carries a rapier would have AC 18 (scale of 14, +2 from Dex, +2 Ranger prof bonus), and when it makes an attack would have +4 to hit (+2 dex with finesse weapon, +2 ranger prof mod) and deal 1d8+4 damage on a hit, and does so at advantage if an ally is within 5 ft of its foe, all for the cost of 75 gp.
If your DM doesn't allow such shenanigans you could armor a boar companion, and have it open up combat with a charge attack that would deal 2d6+3 slashing damage. A giant poisonous snake would poison an enemy on a successful attack, and even if the foe successfully saves (not too hard with a DC of 11) it'd still take ~5 poison damage. While a giant badger isn't the most useful in battle they do have a burrow speed, which, if you DM allows, could make a passage that characters can crawl through to get around obstacles, bury something, or dig something up that was buried. If your DM is really friendly they might even allow a giant badger to dig out burrow the characters could stay in, allowing them to camp safely even in inclement weather or to keep predators (like owlbears) away.
I suppose the big take-away is that an animal companion is more than another form of attack in combat, and can provide exceptional uses even in combat heavy min-maxing campaigns. As for using them for food, I don't think the 8 hours of ritual can be undertaken during a long rest, as it does not state it can and a long rest assumes sleep which would interrupt said ritual, so isn't just "free meat" for every meal.
My fix for this woeful subclass.
BEASTMASTER SUBCLASS (Variant)
Ranger’s Companion
At 3rd level you gain a beast companion that accompanies you on your adventures and is trained to fight alongside you. Choose a beast that is no larger than Medium and that has a challenge rating of 1/4 or lower. Add your proficiency bonus to the beast’s AC, attack rolls, and damage as well as to any saving throws and skills it is proficient with. Any abilities the companion has which require a saving throw gain a bonus to their DC equal to half of your proficiency bonus. The beast is strengthened by your special bond with it, starting with maximum HP for its HD and adding your proficiency bonus at 4th level to its HP maximum, and the proficiency bonus again at each new level thereafter.
The beast obeys your commands as best it can. It takes its turn on your initiative, though it doesn’t take an action unless you command it to. It will however defend itself if attacked until next commanded. On your turn you can verbally command the beast to stay put, or where to move (no action required), otherwise the beast will attempt to stay adjacent with you as you move, independently taking the Dash or Disengage actions as necessary to do so.
You can use an action to verbally command it to take the Attack (against specified target), Dash (to specified location), Disengage (to specified location), Dodge, or Help (you, or a known ally) actions. The beast will continue to carry out the last command you gave it until it is no longer relevant or possible, at which point it will return to your side as quickly as possible, independently taking the Dash or Disengage actions as necessary to do so.
Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one attack yourself when you verbally command the beast.
While travelling through your favoured terrain with only the beast, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.
The beast heals during Short or Long Rests as per the rules relevant to the campaign, spending HD equal to its normal total, or half your character level, whichever is highest. If the beast dies, you can obtain another by spending 8 hours magically bonding with another beast that isn’t hostile to you, either the same type of beast as before or a different one.
When you cast the spell Hunter’s Mark, you must choose whether the spell benefits you or your beast companion.
Exceptional Training
Beginning at 7th level, on any of your turns when your beast doesn’t attack, you can use a bonus action to command the beast to take the Dash (to specified location), Disengage (to specified location), Dodge, or Help (you, or a known ally) action on its turn. In any round you do not use a bonus action to command the beast, you may instead use your reaction to command the beast to Dodge as it's bonus action in response to any threat you are aware of.
Bestial Fury
Starting at 11th level, when you command your beast companion to use the Attack action, it can either make two attacks, or will instead use the Multiattack ability if it is capable of it.
Share Spells
Beginning at 15th level, when you cast a spell targeting yourself, you can also affect your beast companion with the spell if it is within 30ft of you. Hunter’s Mark now benefits both you and your beast companion.
********************************************************************************************************
Wolf Companion HP using variant Beastmaster rules.
Level HP
3 18
4 20
5 23
6 26
7 29
8 32
9 36
10 40
11 44
12 48
13 53
14 58
15 63
16 68
17 74
18 80
19 86
20 92
There's a way to show just how bad BM is.
Let's compare it to Familiars.
Keep in mind that this is comparing an entire Archetype to a single spell.
Find familiar is a spell that all wizards can get. Also with the Ritual Caster feat and dual class everyone has the possibility to learn it. (just need int or wis 13+)
Beast master companions:
Act on own initiative but can only move.
BM can to use their own action to command it to Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help.
BM can use their bonus action to command Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help. but only if it doesn't attack.
BM can trade one of their attacks for a companion attack, at lvl 11 companion atacks twice
.
Familiar
Act on own initiative. It can't attack but it can take other actions as normal. (And that includes hide action which BM companions can not do)
Owner can comunicate with it telepathically within range limit.
Owner can use an action to see and hear through it.
Owner can cast touch spell through it which uses the familiars reaction.
The owners doesn't have to use any of their actions for the familiar to take actions.
Except for attacking, a one spell familiar that everyone can get is superior to an entire archetype. Does that seem right to you?
A companion attacking is poinless below level 11 and sometimes not worth it even then. The attack the hunter loses has better to hit and damage than a single companion attack, someimes better than 2 companion attacks combined (especially when you count the fact the companion needs 2 hits to do that damage) The only animals worth using to attack are poisonous ones and (if the DM allows it) multi attack and bonus attack ones.
And what about when the pet dies?
A BM has to travel to the apropriate area, find the right beast, then spend 8 hours bonding. (then travel back)
Meanwhile if a familiar dies the PC needs to find some ingredience (charcoal, incense, and herbs. wow, that's an epic quest to find them....) and a brasier. Then spend 1 hour casting a ritual.
So on top of everything else a familiar is easier to replace.
"but companions get more HP and AC"..
If the pet is not attacking then except in uncommon situations that's meaningless, unless the DM is being cruel or the player is being daft in how they use their pet.
When there are people with big sharp weapons and flames leaping from their hands, a pet running around doing nothing is not going to be seen as a threat and will not be targetted. Also they should not be anywhere near the fight so if they get hit by an AoE it's their owners fault.
When there are people with big sharp weapons and flames leaping from their hands, a pet poking enemies to distract them (ie help action) is not going to be seen as such a big threat and will not be targetted. Also the pet is going to be right next to enemies in a position their allies will not cast AoEs and should not be in front of an enemy so if they get hit by a cone attack it's their owners fault.
Traps? DM gets to chose what kind of trap it is. Player decides if companion is up front or following behind. So again it's either DM or players decision.
The only time a pet should be taking damage is in cases like an AoE ambush, AoEs that hit the entire area or if it's attacking and being a threat.
Wait. What about Warlocks? They have special rules about familiars.
Warlock can get Pact of the Chain which gives them a familiar. Same as a normal familiar but additional types and the same attack rule as BMs. (Only more useless because Warlocks won't be using attack actions, they'll be casting, unless they go for a weapon using Warlock in which case they'll pick Pact of the Blade and not even have a Familiar.)
They also have access to the ability to comunicate without a range limit , talk through the familiar and the ability to cast Hold Monster once a day.
And that's just from their pact option not the patron which is their actual archetype.
With the current rules a Ranger is better off taking hunter archetype and getting a familiar from ritual casting (or dual class wizard/warlock if they have the requirements and get a bunch of cantrips and spells as well)
Or they could just catch a whole pack of animals and train them to use the help action...
Suggestions to fix things:
Companion shares initiative with hunter (just makes things easier to manage)
Companion gets to move and has one action it can take. Either Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Help, or Hide (Just like the familiar gets to do)
Hunter can use their action to give the companion an aditional action. Either Attack, Use ability, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Help, or Hide. Companion can not take the same action twice in one round. (so no double dashing, etc) Use ability is added to avoid the argument about whether multi attack, bonus actions, etc are allowed as an attack action.
At level 7 the hunter can use their bonus action to give the companion an aditional action. Either Attack, Use ability, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Help, or Hide (The hunter may use either their action or their bonus action to give commands not both)
Because this means that the hunter can get their full attacks while the companion also gets to attack, the level 11 would need to be changed.
My thought would be:
Companion attacks now count as magical (because later game when there's more enemies resistant or immune to non-magical attacks the companions get too weak)
Shared actions are a halmark of over balance and they make me sick. I'd just remove them all and go with the method used in the animate dead spell. A bonus action to command a friendly creature is all that's needed to issue a new command.
Of course, I'd also make it clear to the player that all creatures with a degree of intellegence won't allow you to abuse them. Their actions should always be subject to DM approval. For example, a ranger hiding behind his wolf or using him a trap finder all the time might discover that his wolf doesn't respect him anymore.
EsperOfNovaura wrote:
Shared commands was one of the few things I didnt like in 4th. Beastmaster should not have even been a subclass too be honest. Animal companions should have been a option in the DMG along with henchmen to fill out a small group of players. There are better options for a second ranger subclass out there, wizards was just lazy on this one.
dmgorgon wrote:
I personally just want the Ranger to get some better abilities. The capstone ability is just awful.