My problem with the companion is that they act like they're lobotomised compared to trained animals.
If you buy and train a Mastiff it will run around doing it's own thing, meanwhile you have full acess to all your actions.
Ranger companions, while tougher and strong, have no mind of their own and only act if the ranger sacrifices part of their actions for it. This is daft for an animal which is supposed to be better than a normal trained animal.
With the arguments over whether or not a companion can use special attacks like multi attack and pounch there is often going to have to be a GM decision on what actually happens.
The current rules are pushing rangers to a smaller selection of animals which have high damage, otherwise there's little point trading your attacks for theirs. Either that of all the companion is ever doing is the help action and if that's all their going to do you may as well go hunter.
In order for the companion to attack you have to lose one of your own. so the best way to see if a companion is worth it is simply to compare what you lose with what you gain.ie damage from one weapon attack compared to the damage from the comapanions attack(s). Camparing to other classes is meaninless. You have to compare ranger with a companion to one without.
A Ranger using a bow or single 1 handed weapontrade 1d8+5+magic for companion attacks (or allowing them to use heavy crossbow without needing the feat to be able to use their second attack)
A single 1 hander with feat trades 1d8+7+magic for the attacks..
A 2 hander trades 1d12 or 2d6+5+magic for the attacks.
A duel wielder is impossible. You're either getting a single attack when they attack or using your bonus action to command. either way you don't get the bonus offhand attack.
If, for example, you take Mastiff it'll get 2x 1d6+7, that's at max. Before level 11 it's 1d6+5 making it worse than ANY weapon the ranger uses. Even a ranger favourite the wolf is only getting 2d4+6 pre level 11 (up to 2d4+8 each at max)but at least there's a chance to knock them down so melee have advantage (not a good companion for bow users)
In order for lower damage companion to be worth a rangers single attack BOTH attacks need to hit which is less likely than the single attack from the ranger hitting.
It looks like the best option, if you're using a companion like a Mastiff or wolf, is to use a 2 hander and have the companion help not attack. In both cases it's two attack rolls but the companion needs both to hit whereas the 2 hander only needs one to get it's full damage. Is it really worth taking an archetype if all you're using it for is an advantage rolll per round, flavour RP and some non combat bonuses like scouting? Why not just take hunter, train a pet and you get the bonuses from hunter and only lose the advantage atack. It won't hit as hard (and will die easily) but you'll even have it runing around attacking without you losing any of your actions.
And that's not counting enemies resistant to non magical attacks.
Or the fact that if you cast a spell your companion can't attack at all.
Before level 11 there is zero point in using the companion attack unless you have one from the very small selection with good damage. Meaning that there's going to be a lot of rangers running around with a giant poisonous snake.
As for to hit. Most of the useful animals have +3/+4 basic, then add prof bonus. Whereas the ranger will have +5+prof. So it can't even be argued that the ranger is trading for attacks that are more likely to hit. The one exception is.. guess what... the giant poisonous ****** snake with +6....
Is that seriously the only one worth having? I've seen many discusions where people try to argue beast master is good by using the giant poisonous snake as an exmple. ONE good animal does not mean the class is fine. Remove that damn animal from the list and maybe people will see that beast master needs work.
Of course you could pick a companion purely for RP. then whenever there's a fight you can scratch the enemies and think about what you'll reroll as.
My thoughts of how it should be.
Same restrictions on which animals you can have and their bonuses. except for HP which is 4+con bonus per level.
You have two options for how they behave. If the ranger is small sized, ie Gnomes and Halflings, they may use a medium companion as a mount as described in 'controlling a mount' if the companion is sutable. Otherwise the companion acts independantly with it's own initiative and actions.
An independant companion is still controlled by the ranger and will follow simple verbal instruction such as "move over there" and "attack that one". If no verbal instruction are given, either by choice or due to the ranger being unable to issue instructions, it will act according to it's nature and the situation. It may use any special abilities it has during it's own turn.
Whether the companion is independant or a mount a ranger may use their own action to give the companion a command, allowing the companion to make an aditional action. You may only give a single command each round but may use any of your own actions you're allowed to use to give that command. You may command either a single Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help. A companion may only use each action a single time each round. eg If it dashes during it's own turn it can not be commanded to dash.
Once you have the Extra Attack feature, when you take an attack action you may use the extra attack to command the companion to make a single attack. (Note the change to you making the attack action not the companion, allowing you to make a bonus offhand attack)
Level 7: The ranger may use their bonus action to issue a command.
Level 11: The ranger can command their companion to make a single attack even if it uses an attack or an ability on it's own turn.
That's it. Some nice simple changes that allow the companion to actually be more than just an extra limb for the ranger. The giant poisonous snake is still OP (and I'd love to see GMs banning it) but at least the other animals are actually worth taking now.
That's a bit OP, multi-attacking pets will do insane damage if the ranger doens't sacrifice something.
What needs to happen is the beast master needs to be dropepd as a sub-class and the ranger's extra attack ability replaced with a custom beast pet at level 5, or maybe they can have the beast pet earlier but it doesn't attack independently until level 5, or it costs a bonus action or something but the freely attacking beast pet is a natural prelacement for the extra attack at fifth level, and solves so many beast handling issues.
I read and re-read the Beastmaster Ranger in the PHB many times. I kept feeling like I was missing something.
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.
The reason action share keeps getting used is because wizards keeps usign ranger as a test case for the pet rules. The problem being that the ranger was never the pet abuser, it was druids and other mage types that ruined thigns for everyone with the way 3e allowed them to control the action economy. The intent is to prevent the beast from being effectively an action multiplier. They don't want a repeat of 3es pets where you could get monsters that were on par or superior to PCs of a similar level, and then have all your normal spells/abilities on top of that.
The problem is that ranger is about the last class that needed that kind of balancing. What they should do instead is scrap the beast master as a sub class and the extra ranger attack at level 5 and just let the extra attack(s) come froma custom built for the class pet.
Effectively you can trade in your Extra Attack feature for your Beast to attack. It is, however, optional (maybe it shouldn't be?). The problem is not with how you can make your Beast attack (except for the verbal bit, I went a level in Warlock to get Telepathy for a reason dammit!), but how squishy the beast is.
Why doesn't the ranger's beast companion just 'level up' parallel to the ranger? It grows in attack damage, HD, AC, saves, etc, etc....
Also, the beastmaster ranger should be able to (at level 17) be equal to a level 17 fighter. But, instead of 4 attacks/round, they get two, and their beast gets two. IMO, that's not OP at all. Look at casters and fighters, and how much damage dice they throw at level 17+. If myself or my friends wanted to play a beastmaster ranger, we'd basically treat the beast as a second PC, controlled by the same person who controls the ranger PC.
Either that or gimp summons/polymorphs for druids, wizards, etc. (Please don't. 4e did that, and it actually bugged me. No one at our table wanted to play any kind of summoner-type, aside form the 4e shaman, ever.)
If we're going with realistic then you need to make a handle animal check every time to order your pet to do something he may or may not do without compensation (a treat).
seti wrote:
How about a compromise then about the companion's special ability.
In order for them to do it it takes both the companion action and a command. The extra attack command can only be used for a normal companion attack meaning that in order for the companion ot use an ability the rangers has to use their normal or bonus action to command.
In order for the companion to get 2 attacks it has to attack on it's turn and them the ranger gives up their extra attack or bonus attack to command an additional attack. During this round the companion can not take any other action ecept a move.
If a companion has an ability that allows it a extra action, taking that action counts as a command and can only be done if such a command is allowed, the ranger loses the apropriate action. Eg pounce allows an extra attack. As an extra attack it can only happen at level 11 or higher, the ranger uses their main action, bonus action or extra attack to give the command.
In order for those rules to work the companion would have to be using the ranger's initiative even though it acts independantly (like how a large group of enemies will all act at the same time) and that makes sense because they have trained together to act in unison.
So each round ranger and companion do one of the following:
1) ranger get 2 attacks (or casts spell or does other action), companion get 2 normal attacks (bite, claw, etc) (only at 11+) (one on it's turn, one with bonus action command)
2) ranger gets 2 attacks (or casts spell or does other action), companion gets 1 attack plus an action for dash etc (at 7+)
3) ranger gets 2 attacks, 1 bonus offhand, companion gets 1 attack or action on it's turn. (no command used)
4) ranger gets 1 attack, 1 bonus offhand, companion gets 2 attacks (only at 11+)
5) ranger gets 1 attack, 1 offhand, companion gets 1 attack and an action. (at 5+)
6) ranger gets 2 attacks (or casts spell or does other action), companion does a special ability. (at 7+)
7) ranger gets bonus action to use, companion does a special ability.
There's a maximum of 4 attacks in a round or 2 and a special ability.
Comapre that to hunter who get 2 attacks (3 with offhand) and is making multiple extra attacks each turn if there are enemies in range.
The beast master sits in the middle damage wise with their damage output consistant each turn. If enemies are spread out the hunter will do less damage due to not getting extra attacks, if enemies are bunched the hunter will do more damage due to all the extra attacks.
These changes would make a beast master competative with hunter and worthy of consideration. Atm it's only viable with specific companions and seriously underperforming with most. It needs to be sorted so that ALL animals are a viable option.
Meanwhile weapon using classes get 2 attacks, 3 if they duel wield. fighters get 4 (5 with DW) and many classes also get bonuses on their attacks.
Casters get just the one attack but their cantrips end up doing similar damage to multiple attacks.
So the Beast master would not be OP compared to other classes. Except for when using specific animals and that's a problem with the animal NOT the beast master.
@ Esper.
Your first point is very similar to what I'm suggesting. The companion acts indpendently with it's own actions and the hunter has the choice to issue more specific instructions.
Second point. Because the companion's abilities increased with proficiency I don't see that big an issue with the CR. Maybe increase it to 1/2. Anything more and it just starts getting silly. A CR 5 Triceratops with 4d8+6+prof damage is way too overpowered expecialy if it's running around on it's own while the ranger can also attack and cast spells.
DeDeHawkbane wrote:
Hunters Mark seems to be the main gignature spell for the huner ranger.
But it is less effective for the Beast Master Ranger becouse the extra damage is only dealth on your attack and not your pets.
Maybe we should try to come up with another signature spell for the Beast Master.
maybe that allouws you to comand your pet as a bonus action instead of as your action, for a number of rounds based onthe spellslot used.
Or add a option that makes the pet a bit more efected against the target maked by your huters mark
seti wrote:
EsperOfNovaura wrote:
One thing that confuses me, how does an animal with multi-attack work with the beast master stuff. Can they use their multi-attack ability as one attack or what? and are the various suggestions being made takign that into account?
rampant wrote:
This is why we need custom jobs, not this use the monster entries crap.
This is what happens when designers spend too much attention on magical abilities and leave non magical abilities/mechanics as an after thought. These type of pet mechanics caused issues in the past and in the new design were obviously not given the attention or testing they deserved.
rampant wrote:
Here is a custom job using the DMG. Not sure it will help with the lobotomy issue tho.
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.
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 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?
And, as shown before, a companion attacking is poinless below level 11 and sometimes not worth it even then, unless you have a companion that is poisonous.
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.
With the current rules a Ranger is better off taking hunter archetype and getting a familiar from ritual casting (or dual class wizard if they have the int and get cantrips and a whole pile of spells)
Or they could just catch any animal and train it to use the help action...
"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.
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.