Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 SnigTheAxe Jun 14, 2015 10:33:22	So I've really been wanting to play a small mounted bm ranger (goblin wolf rider) but after doing some research I found a lot of negative posts about how the bm was sub par and your animal companion acted like a dumb robot, using up your actions to do anything at all. Some even said the animal would just sit there and not react to being attacked unless you used an action to command it.   None of this sounded very logical, but I struggled with the wording in the phb. After you gave the command to attack would it continue to follow that command until it was complete or it no longer could? Or did you have to command it turn after turn?   I decided to get on twitter and seek out a professional opinion. Here is what Mike Mearls has to say.   https://twitter.com/jeffvmahar/status/609931625112182784   I'd like to know what you guys think, and how this could effect the playability of the bm.
#2 jaelis Jun 14, 2015 11:16:17	It really up to the DM how you all want to play it. If you have a character concept and you feel the rules don't work right for it, talk to your DM about resolving that. If Mearl's idea sounds good to both of you, go for it.   As I read the book rule though, I'd say you'd have to command the beast every turn. I don't think this is super-powerful, but it's also not as bad as you might have gotten the impression of. A hunter ranger will likely be better in straight DPR, but you'll still be effective and you'll get a lot of interesting options and out-of-combat advantages.
#3 SnigTheAxe Jun 14, 2015 12:04:56	After reading carefully again carefully here is what I think. From PHB   "The beast obeys your commands as best as it can. It takes its turn on your initiative, though it doesn't take an action unless you command it to. On your turn, you can verbally command the beast where to move (no action required by you). Vou can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help action."   If you look closely and think about it. "The beast obeys your commands as best as it can." So once you give it a command (ex. attack) it will continue to obey that command as best as it can. You could easily assume that it would continue to attack what you told it too?   It will not however choose a target on it's own initiative, ("though it doesn't take an action unless you command it to.") and therfore you must expend an action to order it any time you want it to select a new target or preform a different action.   I think this could easily have been the intent of Wotc.
#4 jaelis Jun 14, 2015 12:06:10	When it says you can use your action to tell it to take the Attack action, that sounds like a 1:1 thing to me. If it said you could use your action to command it to attack, that would sound more like what you're saying. But what I think doesn't matter, ask your DM.
#5 Barky Jun 14, 2015 13:31:45	I would think that if you commanded it to attack a creature, it would continue attacking until that creature was dead, even if it took several rounds. Just like if you commanded it to fetch something that was more than it's one-round movement rate away, it would fetch it and return it to you even if it took several rounds.
#6 Kalani Jun 14, 2015 14:00:10	That is not how it works. It works like this:   Action (Ranger; Beastmaster): Your beast takes the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help action.    Basically, you give up your action to let it take the action. If you notice in the wording (quoted above) - it does not say that it continues to take the action on each of its turns until issued a new order. It says that you spend an action to let it take one of the following actions. An action is a once/off thing.
#7 Alynn Jun 14, 2015 14:51:54	As written, no the beast does not continue to attack.   I think it comes down to action economy so that the Ranger doesn't get multiple attacks at 3rd level. This thought is further solidified when you see that the ranger can attack once if he commands his companion to attack once he has the extra attack feature. This basically keeps the ranger's number of actions in line with other classes.
#8 Wuzzard Jun 14, 2015 17:19:36	I read the rule as a one for one thing.  When the rules are talking about things in term of action economy they are very specific, and are always concerned with maintaining a balance/cap on what can be done per turn.   However, as DM I'd allow the beast to continue with the same action, because I'm not concerned at all about maintaining the balance of action economy between players, but I am concerned that the rules I use attempt to model the fiction, and in my games animals are there own selves and operate separate and simultaneous.  If that means the ranger and animal combined can DPR more than some other character alone, then so be it, because they are two creatures not one. The animal companion is also susceptible to being knocked out easily since it usually doesn't have a lot of hit points. There's a lot of story possibility with that.
(Reply to #8) OoftaMeg	Wuzzard wrote:
#10 FunkySpunk Jun 14, 2015 22:21:11	If the animal would not continue to attack, I can definitely see why this subclass is thought to suck.
#11 DoctorBadWolf Jun 15, 2015 0:54:11	RAW, it only attacks if you command it to, which requires an action.   But 5e is poorly written, on purpose, so it's "up to the DM", which it would be even if the rules were clear, meaning that "up to the DM" just means, "we didn't want to make a tough call, so we're using 4e backlash as an excuse to not bother making an elegant, robust rules system, and make your life and your DM's life easier."   So, you'll always get posts with an attitude of "why asking us or Mearls or even bothering to read the rules, just ask your DM."   TO me, you might as well just not even give the player's any idea of the mechanics of the game, instead putting all of it in the DMG, at that point and I can't fathom what some people see as good about any of that, but hey, some people juggle geese.     FOr this specific situation, I think Mearls posits a reasonable ruling/houserule, which shores up the BM quite nicely. I would either go with what he suggests, or give the ranger and beast companion the ability to communicate ideas and information, and let the ranger use a spell slot to heal the beast.  Either Mearls suggestion or mine will shore up the build, and make you closer to an equal with the hunter ranger.
(Reply to #7) Barky	Alynn wrote:
#13 Orethalion Jun 15, 2015 6:41:39	Kalani wrote:
(Reply to #13) Mechatarrasque	Orethalion wrote:
#15 jaelis Jun 15, 2015 9:41:21	I like that approach too.
#16 intently Jun 15, 2015 12:00:08	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #14) DoctorBadWolf	Mechatarrasque wrote:
(Reply to #17) Mechatarrasque	DoctorBadWolf wrote:
#19 jaelis Jun 16, 2015 9:13:24	i don't think it needs to be that detailed. Just say that an uncommanded beast is under the DM's control, and does what the DM thinks is appropriate given the situation.
(Reply to #19) OoftaMeg	jaelis wrote:
#21 RCanine Jun 19, 2015 22:18:26	Orethalion wrote:
#22 DoctorBadWolf Jun 20, 2015 0:24:50	I just allow the ranger and beast to communicate ideas and information, and the bm ranger is really strong in exploration, pretty strong in combat. For me, that's plenty. I'm thinking I may allow the beast to take a reaction like a character, too.   I don't have the book with me. Does the beast benefit from the favored terrain and favored enemy stuff?
(Reply to #20) AndyDay	So Mikes take is basically: the beast master is either mediocre or really awesome, depending on the DM's mood. That is a load of garbage. Talk about a cop out.
#24 RCanine Jun 20, 2015 21:49:45	AndyDay wrote:
(Reply to #23) DoctorBadWolf	AndyDay wrote:
#26 AndyDay Jun 21, 2015 11:30:39	DoctorBadWolf wrote:
(Reply to #26) DoctorBadWolf	AndyDay wrote:
#28 Lilika Jun 21, 2015 19:56:29	I like Mearl's interpretation of the rules, but I wish it were in the rules or at least aluded too in the rules.