Okay, I get that you need to spend an action to send your animal companion to attack.
What seems to be in discussion is if you need to do this every single round. I'm of the mind that if you tell your animal companion to attack a single opponent, you don't need to continue spending actions for the animal to attack the same opponent. You will need to use an action to have it stop, or to have it go after someone else, or whatever, but basically, you don't need to give the animal a command every single turn to have it do what it did last turn.
Some people disagree. And I couldn't find anything here after a quick perusal.
Thoughts?
Actually, I can see this for other things. If you tell your companion to 'run', you shouldn't have to tell it to run every single turn.
If you're racing off a collapsing bridge, and you tell your companion to keep up with you (Dash Action), you shouldn't have to blow your action every turn to tell it to run. If you did that, you'd not be able to use a Dash action yourself. "Yay, my pet can run, but I can't!"
I really think the rules can be interpreted as "you can give one command to your pet". The pet will act according to that command until you contradict it.
This one rule, more than anything else, is the flaw in the beastmaster class design. I understand its intent was limit ranger having a very strong multi attack presence early on.
I am not really the house ruling type, so this is out of my territory BUT, if i was to make a houserule decision on the beast master, is that the command to attack/disengage/dodge etc given to the beast costs the ranger his bonus action not his main action.
So if you are duel weilding u can have the beast attack, and make one yourself. Or shoot ur arrow and make the beast attack. Any any rate, it seems better balanced as a bonus action than an action.
That way the beast attacking still involves a cost to the ranger (particularly duel wielders) and yet keeps the class more comeptitive with others.
Possibly, though I see this as the 'level 3 trick' the class gets, on par with the Barbarian's Reckless Attack (Advantage on all Attacks at the Cost of Advantage against you) or the Vengeance Paladin being able to Channel to get Advantage on all Attacks against one opponent (plus Hunter's Pursuit to get +1d6 as a bonus action) at the cost of needing a Short Rest to recharge. The Ranger gets 'spend 1 Action' to command the pet, and as far as I can figure (and will house rule if necessary), can let the animal do that command without any other effort. Sure, the Ranger can effectively get '3' attacks per Round after - but the problem is 1 Action needs to be spent to prep it, and the extra action (the animal) can be killed, thus removing an ability from the Ranger until it is replaced.
And I think that's what sold me on it. The companion is killable. A GM can literally take away the PC's class ability. And if the PC is not in the proper area, they're not getting it back for the foreseeable future. Neither of the other warrior classes have this limitation. Which makes it, for me, justified that if the PC wants to go multieattack and have a pet? Sure. I'm fine with that, and I'm fine with the animal not having to be commanded to attack the target it is already attacking every single turn.
I'm just hoping to get some more or less official word on this.
There is no doubt about it, the beast master is unpowered, arguably the weakest class in the game.
I wish i knew the official word, all things equal i prefer to solve problems with official answers myself. But, for what its worth i think it really is meant to be each time the animal attacks, yet, it is under descriptive, and could be interpreted the way you suggest without contradicting anything that is written.
But i dont think that is the way it is intended, and the official word will come down against this interpretation.
Perhaps, they want the class to suck?
Well at 7th level it is a bonus action to dash, disengage, dodge, or help. At 11th level the beast makes 2 attacks when you use your action to command it to attack.
This is a balance issue and it is designed as it was meant to be.
Don't forget the Ranger also gets an extra attack at 5th level so he can attack and the beast can attack. So once you hit 11th level you actually get 1 attack yourself + two for your beast + a potential bonus action attack for yourself if using TWF or a feat.
That might make sense, but with other actions, such as dash, it still becomes a problem (until you can do Dash as a bonus action). Until 7th Level though, it seems that you can't actually run with your pet. And at 5th Level, I don't see a problem with you getting two attacks and your pet attacking once every round. Again, your pet is killable - the only class ability which can be wiped out like that. I think that balances it.
It's killable, but it is not easily killable. It adds your proficiency bonus to AC. Plus the ranger has cure wounds to keep the little fella going(and you get that before you even get the companion). Two levels after you get the BC you get your extra attack that lets both of you attack.
As for the running away thing, dash is more for combat than trying to escape enemies(some DMs may be sticklers about it but most DMs will just allow you to escape), but most BCs have higher speed than you anyway so it isn't a big deal. That's more of a corner case concern than a practical application concern.
I don't know about 'allow to escape'. For example, if you have a Speed 30, your wolf has a Speed 40, and your enemy has a Speed 40, you're wanting to run. Running is a Dash Action.
So, first Round. You Dash 60, your wolf moves 40, your enemy Dashes 80 and catches up to your wolf.
Next Round. So... do you Dash 60, your Wolf moves 40, and your enemy moves 40 and hits your wolf? Or do you move 30, have your wolf Dash 80, and risk getting yourself smacked?
See, it makes much more sense to say 'I command my wolf to dash', move 30, then next turn start dashing 60, and let your wolf keep up by moving 60 with you every turn as a dash. It makes no logical sense to have to yell at your animal companion, 'run! run again!' if you're trying to get your butt out of harm's way. They might be animals, but they're not stupid animals. If they're trained, you'd think it wouldn't take any amount of skill to simply say 'kill that thing', without having to remind it what it is doing.
And seriously, making it 'fire and forget' doesn't seem unbalancing. Comparing the 'you get one extra attack per round after the first' for a minimal amount of damage seems... fair... compared to the damage output I'm seeing from barbarians and paladins in the game I'm in. (To wit, the barbarian does 1d8+17 with advantage on all attacks per round, and the paladin does 1d10+1d6+14 / 1d4+1d6+14 with advantage against a single opponent per round and re-rolls 1s and 2s on damage). At Level 3? I don't see this as much of an issue. And as the ranger gains levels, and more abilties, most of these seem tied to the animal companion, and this means that it is still an ability that can get removed fairly quickly. The paladin and barbarian don't have that kind of weakness (they have different ones). I seriously feel the balancing issues aren't really that bad.
That said, I'm still hoping for an official ruling.
The official ruling is in the book. It isn't vague. It doesn't say or imply at all that it sustains this action. In fact when they talk about extra attack it pretty much tells you that you have to use your action every time you want your beast to attack.
This is intentional. Extra attacks are special and protected in the game. You have to use feats, inferior weapons(TWF), or class features to get them. It's NOT just the damage. It's the potential chance of hitting increasing with each extra attack.
And if you'e running away, it seems reasonable that your beast follows you and doesn't need to be commanded to do that. The dash restriction is about in combat, not escaping. If a DM is abusing it like that it's a DM issue, not a rule issue.
I think bonethug is right, the meaning of the rule is pretty clear, what you suggest as an alternative is merely 'logically' compatible with what is suggested.
However, i still think because of this limiation the beastmaster is underpowered. Especially compared to when you look at what a hunter can do. Having said that, if you can grab a ranged beast, fairly handy that.
The other issue is you are giving out an extra attack every round at 3rd level when no other class in the game gets an extra attack until 5th level(barring a feat or using inferior weapons with TWF). That is clearly not the intent. Now you are more than stepping on the fighter's toes.
If everyone could get a BC it would be one thing. Being that it is exclusive to Ranger it is clear that you aren't supposed to be getting an extra attack every round at 3rd level.
Well not quite bonethug-several classes gain multiattacks at earlier levels than five.
Sorceror twin spell.
Ranger-hunter using Horde breaker at level 3.
Monks-all of them
Figther-Battlemasters
AND-All classes by using an offhand weapon with there bonus action. (which is why i think the attack command should cost a bonus action not a main action).
that way a 2 weapon fighting ranger can only make his main attack action, but not his offhand bonus attack, if he wants to command the beast to attack.
It still denies a multi attack by denying the ranger one attack roll he would otherwise have. So it takes 2 attacks down to 1. It costs less than the current version, makes sense, and is better balanced.
Right now a 2 weapon ranger gives up 2 attacks to command his beast to make 1 as his attack action. and in all likelyhood the beast makes worse attacks (it cant be optomized like a player can).
This would require some changes to the level 7 beastmaster 'exceptional training' class feature though. Or maybe not, since it clearly states when your beast doesn't attack. So it would be simply allowing you to do more alternative things with the bonus action.
I agree with you that extra attacks are useful, i just think that a bonus action is not nothing to give up, especially for rangers who are so often two weapon fighters.
I say this as someone who doesnt houserule this. We play by the Raw, so in my games beast masters are just the underpowered option. Nobody plays em 
, that has more or less been our gaming tables solution to the issue.
There is more to it than just the extra attack, and the Monk's extra attack uses their bonus action effectively replacing TWF and causing less damage at early levels, you take twin spell at the expense of other advantages, same with horde breaker(and it has restrictions that Extra attack doesn't), and I'm not sure what Battlemaster feature you are talking about. I also pointed out TWF and anyone could use that. It isn't class specific.
The BC can go into melee while the Ranger stays out of harms way. If he could move and attack every turn in addition to the Ranger's actions, you have just given him a whole other (N)PC to play with instead of a class feature. The 11th level feature would give way more attacks than intended. The BC can use the help action as a bonus action at 7th level which is being completely overlooked. That is a HUGE advantage to have.
The only big issue here is that at levels 3 and 4 you don't get much out of your BC. What it does give you is options though. You can keep yourself safe, send the BC into melee, and heal him as needed. Once he really starts coming "online" at 5th, 7th, and 11th levels you have a very powerful weapon at your disposal. You get utility for two levels, and then you start getting a powerful tool after that.
Hmm maybe i should give beastmaster another look. I still feel its probably an underpowered option, which in itself is not a big deal, something had to be underpowered, something always is.
I agree that it is underpowered at levels 3 and 4 for sure. At level 5 it starts catching up as you can do range and melee together. That's pretty powerful for one character. Bonus help at 7th is huge, and an extra attack for the beast at 11th is also big. Share spells at 15th should also not be overlooked. All kinds of combos with that.
It's something that starts slow(like the Monk's bonus action unarmed strike), but quickly becomes more powerful as you level.
Ok ,you have convinced me the class isnt awful. But i think, even at higher levels its still subpar-on account of pc attacks >beast attacks, specially when you get magic items. You just do way more damage shooting twice, than shooting once and attacking once. At any rate -i think the ops question has been answered. Much to his and my chagrin.
Good discussion.
I'm not trying to say it's the best class in the game, or even that it isn't the worst. Just pointing out that it's not as underpowered as people are thinking as once things start kicking in the power starts cranking up.
Okay, but here's a question for you. If you're at range, and you send in your beast - there is absolutely nothing stopping your opponent from killing the beast, rather than dealing with you. You've been protected for a short period of time - maybe a round or two... but then what? Even if you win the fight, you're down a Class Feature. You need a Long Rest to get it back - presuming the animal you want is even in the region. Until then, you're out your Class Feature.
I've told my players that giving the animal a command allows it to continue that command without you having to micromanage. I'll see how this works, but I honestly don't see it even remotely being overpowered compared to other classes.
(And honestly, I'm sick and tired of RPGs nerfing animal companions - eventually, animal companions become next to useless against threats the PCs face because of it.)
Well, i think it requires only a short rest to bond. pcs can swap beasts. so summon something that will do for a bit.
The stats equalize out mostly anyway, as most of its attack, damage etc, comes from the bonus power it gets from class feature.
I will say if you get a beastmaster to level 11, u can make a ranged attack, and then it can make 2 melee attacks, thats not bad.
Yes the beast dies, important to keep it buffed up.
The chain familiar, ala Warlock, is also pretty weak. I think that this is just a flaw with pets. They tried to keep them from being overpowering like in 3e, and ended up going too far. Meanwhile, Conjure Monster and zombie hoards are amazingly brokenly powerful.
I'm of the opinion that pets need to be readjusted. The lack of stacking with Hunter Marks / Hex, and the lack of scaling damage that matches simple weapon attacks, and the difficulty of using them alongside a spell (such as Conjure Volley) leads to it being a bit on the weak side. The Chain pet eventually becomes worthless to use in combat (level 5).
Its admittedly a bit frustrating as a ranger when your pet gets more attack actions than you, unless we're talking about TWF, which leads to the issue of needing two magic weapons that you hit only once with each... If you go Duelist or Archer, your pet can use the Help action to give someone else in melee advantage. But heaven help you if you run into something with resistance to non-magical weapons.
There's just a lot of complications running here. Pet subclasses just have issues.
Daydreamer80 wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
I'm not convinced that combat balance between classes is much of a design priority in this game. Based on my experience, this game is about sharing spotlight which is about right for an RPG and less right for a tactical combat game. If you're used to the combat balance of 4e, then 5e's going to seem like it missed the mark... but I don't think that mark was a major design goal for this game anyway. (Note: I'm still a huge 4e fan, but for different reasons than why I'm a fan of 5e. I play both.)
Ehhh.... I'm finding that Chain is better for the GOO warlock than Book, personally. It just suits the kind of magic they specialize in better. The big problem is that you can get a familiar with Book, so there should be some kind of special bonus you get for being Chain. Like sharing Self spells instead of just Touch spells.
Mephi1234 wrote:
Wait, people thought the animal companions in 3e were overpowered? Strange, I often found them kind of weak - and familiars were just extra squishy as well.
Tashiro wrote:
There are a few issues I would consider changing. I'm saying that these changes are all balanced by any means, but I'd be interested in getting feedback.
- It should be my Attack action. So many useful abilities are triggered by taking the Attack action: two weapon fighting, martial arts, shield master, crossbow expert, polearm master, swift quiver, the option of grappling or shoving. The Beast Master archetype would be so much more palatable with one simple change. You don't spend an action to command your pet to Attack. Rather, "when you take the Attack action, you may forgo one of your own attacks to verbally command your beast companion to make one attack of its own". In fact, I took that line directly from PHB pg 107. It's the rule a Warlock uses for his familiar -- I merely swapped out "familiar" with "beast companion" and "allow" with "verbally command". This simple change allows significantly more versatility without altering the action economy much. In fact, it probably more closely reflects the way many players and DMs initially read the class. It removes the need for the awkward "Once you have the Extra Attack feature..." clause since that is baked in. Bestial Fury would then read "Starting at 11th level, when you take the Attack action and forgo one of your own attacks, your beast companion may make two attacks of its own rather than one." Another advantage is that now the list of commands which become bonus actions under Exceptional Training matches exactly the list of commands which used to be actions.
- I like that the beast companion scales with your level, but the implementation is sloppy: hit points are directly tied to your Ranger class leve; AC, attack rolls, and damage are indirectly tied to your character level via your proficiency bonus; hit dice do not scale at all.
Having hit points tied to your character level rather than class level would help a lot for multiclassing. Perhaps this is precisely why it has been tied to class level, but given how other goodies like Exceptional Training, Bestial Fury, and Share Spells are already spread out across higher Ranger levels, it doesn't seem like a big problem to allow a barbarian to take a three level dip into Ranger to get a pet with more than 12 hit points. Hell, at 12 hit points a beast companion is hardly better than a familiar at high levels, and anyone can summon himself a familiar with either a one level dip into Wizard or by taking either Magic Initiate or Ritual Caster as a feat.
Adding your proficiency bonus to AC, attack rolls, and damage rolls feels terribly sloppy. I mean, since when is a proficiency bonus added to AC or damage rolls? And isn't it awkward that your proficiency bonus stacks with the beast's own proficiency bonus for attack rolls and skills? That said, the simplicity arguably justifies the sloppiness. The main change I would consider here is adding your proficiency bonus to the beast's DCs for things like poisons and pounces. Or maybe at least add half your proficiency bonus to those DCs? I don't think I have enough experience with higher level play to judge the staying power of DC 11 saving throws on your at will attacks, but my guess is that they could stand to use at least that little half prof boost.
Thirdly, I can understand not scaling up your beast companion's hit dice. After all, your companion is already like a second bag of hit points, so they don't want you to double up on your bag of hit dice too. But still, it would be nice if a Ranger could expend his own hit dice to heal his beast companion during short rests. If your companion dies, it's a big deal. Unlike a Warlock who just burns a bit of incense and waves it around for 70 minutes to bring back his familiar, a Ranger needs to go out and physically find a new beast and then spend 8 hours magically bonding. So a Ranger really can't afford to let his pet die. Also, keep in mind during the comparison with familiars that a Warlock can temporarily dismiss their familiar to a pocket dimension, only resummoning it when its scouting utility is needed. A Ranger can do no such thing, so the argument that a beast companion can be saved for utility and kept out of combat doesn't hold water.
- Lastly, let the beast companion join in the effects of hunter's mark. Is it really too much to ask for your pet to also gets the extra 1d6 per attack and the advantage on relevant checks to track down your quarry? It feels like this must have been an oversight.
Stormborn20 wrote:
One level dip into rouge gives you an extra 2d6 while you have your pet next to something attacking. SO hunters mark, sneak attack, longbow, beast attack.
Just saying.
Stormborn20 wrote:
cowleymen wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Stormborn20 wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Hello people,
I've roled up a ranger myself (half-orc, strength based and probably TWF) because of my background story a pet (wolf) would make a lot of sense.
For me it is not only a game of numbers but it should always be fun to play your char.
So the beastmaster path forces me to stand there doing nothing with my axes and tell my trusted companien to die for me while the raging half-orc stays back and does effectively nothing? That's not fun. Even if you later get the second attack feature it's still not the class I envisioned. A tag team of human and beast in perfect harmony taking down scores of enemies TOGETHER, not one of them watching.
It is clear that this class is meant to fill the Drizzt fantasy of many players and having read nearly all of the novels I just can't imagine Drizzt telling his panther to attack. They are a team with no or nearly no need to communicate. Gwyn, as one of the other posters wrote, is more of a Char on his/her own (NPC) and for fun's sake it should be the same with the hunter's beast companian.
Maybe it could be balanced ny not adding the bonus to attack damage or something like that. It makes sense to me that you have to give the attack command once and then attack with your beast. Maybe the hunter should be forced to give a new command once the enemy the beast was attacking is dead, but I don't really know if that would be enough balance wise.
As a DM i would surely allow sth like that as a player I hope my DM will grant me sth similar.
As mentioned in all the books, having fun at the table is priority number one and not the rules as written.
Bogus73 wrote:
Familiars can't attack though. That's why they are allowed to use their own actions. And it's not that the Ranger just stands back. You have more options because you can choose to attack or have your beast attack. It's not like you are forbidden from attacking. You have added versatility.
At level 5 the "problem" goes away. Considering you get the Companion at level 3, that's only 2 levels of growing pains.
bonethug0108 wrote:
The help action is powerful. As it is though, you get that as a bonus action at 7th level. Any other character would have to use a regular action to use help, but the BC can do so as a bonus action at 7th so I'd say that's working as intended.
Also, comparing it to a Familiar you will see that the Familiar still can't attack and has lower HP. One hit does them in(they are all CR 0 except the poisonous snake at CR 1/8). ALL they are good for in combat is using Help(or as a poor distraction). The BC has much more versatility.
The Paladin doesn't get his steed until 5th level(when he can first cast level 2 spells such as Find Steed). It also never improves over it's base form like the BC does and is in general weaker than the BCs that a Ranger can get.
Just as an example:
Rat Familiar
AC 10
HP 1
+0 to hit(but cannot attack)
1 damage(but cannot attack)
Rat Beast Companion at 3rd Level
AC 12
HP 12
+2 to hit
3 damage
And the BC only improves with level, while the familiar stays the same. That's also an apples to apples comparison because the Ranger can get even better base creatures.
Paladin War Horse
AC 11
HP 19
+4 to hit
11 damage
Riding Horse BC at 5th Level(lowest level as Paladin gets his mount; Ranger cannot have a War Horse BC)
AC 13
HP 20
+5 to hit
11 damage
And again the BC will only improve with level while the steed will not. The War Horse is also the best mount a Paladin can get unless the DM says otherwise, and the Riding Horse is already better as a BC.
This last Sage Advice shed a bit of light on the Attack action.
Woodclaw312 wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Hm, personally I think it's fine.
Even though the sublass is named Beast Master the core of your class is that you're a Martial nature oriented guy. The pet is more about fluff, maybe use it to scout a little with special senses and that's about it.
You could place it in front of your Wizard to protect him, because your companion can take AoO without you doing nothing (errata saying companion uses reaction on its own).
So, that is something. You can use it to trigger other's people reaction, protecting yourself.
Maybe flavor wise is not the best, but I see it as a dispensable friend that you could use to protect yourself and your allies.
Also, you can use it to trigger Sneak Attack from your rogue if you're a Ranged Ranger. If the enemy hits the companion instead of your rogue, your rogue avoided 1 attack, your companion might live too. Your companion is contributing combat without you doing nothing (not wasting any actions)
Considering the Wolf at level 3 has +6 to hit and 1d6+4 damage with a prone (I think it should have increased DC with proficiency), while the ranger probably has +7 to hit and 1d8+3 damage with a longbow, I'd say the wolf's attack is reasonably on par with the ranger's; damage the same, slightly weaker to hit bonus, but it has the prone condition. The giant poisonous snake has killer damage potential, more than the Hunter's giant slayer damage of +7 1d8+3+1d8 (12) with +8 1d4+6 +3d6(+2?) save for half (19/15, and that's without throwing in the potential extra +2).
There are some cruddy companion animals, mostly because the low AC animals don't have the comiserate HP boost that they normally have. But some have a lot of damage, like the giant poisonous snake or the black bear (potential 16), others have nice secondary effects, like the wolf's prone or the panther's pounce.
Getting to add something to the ranger's solo attacks at level 3 and 4 would be nice, but again, the pet's attack is pretty good.
As for the companion's potential for dying, it does have 4xlevel HP, while the ranger itself will probably have 6 or 7xlevel hp. If the companion is attacked enough to take it down, that's damage the rest of the party didn't take.
Now I do think the ranger needs a "Revivify Companion" spell or ritual rather than having to track one down. Or at least a DM who doesn't kick them while they're down.
None of this answers one of the most glaring problems with beastmastery though, at about mid levels the number of creatures with resistance to non magical damage becomes common place making your beast almost useless against them. All it litteraly can do is aid another at the point and thats wrong.
Also to say take levels in rogue to make ranger better is kinda silly the path and class should stand on its own. Beastmaster is a half finishhed path at best, which is a shame as the hunter and his pet is so iconic, and one of my favorite themes (other then kobolds of course).