Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Aldath Jul 27, 2015 23:17:08	As far as I understand, RAW indicates Animal Companions can ONLY take an attack action if the Ranger gives up its own.   Tho I hate the way WOTC handled this class (I mean, there's a magical item that nets you better animals that use a bonus action instead), I'm the kind of GM that thinks RAW is there to avoid chaos on the game table, specially since I suck at homebrewing.   I noticed some Animals like the Panther, Giant Toad, Giant Crab and Giant Badger have multiattacks, Pounce and Grapples, which make them tactically attractive (also as of now the list of Animal Companions is incredibly boring when compared to PF or 3.5e).    If I'm not mistaken, the companion can't make use of said abilities once it becomes a companion, it can ONLY make normal attacks, which makes it pretty lackluster.   Is there any particular reason for the RAW disalowing the use of Bonus Actions to control the Companion and also preventing it from making anything fun?   I'd like to know the design philosophy behind it.
#2 Mazzy Jul 28, 2015 1:15:00	Its more than just a RAW vs RAI debate. There is no other way to read the rules. It is clearly designed to work the way it does.   That said, the designers themselves said they made a serious mistake with how weak the beastmaster is. They said if they had to do it over again it would work very differently. However they also said that they do not want to use errata to balance classes and will instead take what they learned from the beastmaster going forward in future pet-build design.   I do think allowing the beast to act on its own is fine. Compared to the hunter, which gets functionally a free d8 each round, having an animal companion with a more powerful attack but who can be killed along the adventure, does not seem overpowered. The paladin in my game casts Find Steed, which as a magical summon can attack on its own, and does not seem to break the game. It often dies. Just understand that this would be a house rule. You're not playing RAI here.   As for the issue of their design philosophy: free extra attacks are terrifying to designers who try to handle the action economy very closely. Twin Strike was ridiculously OP in 4e, significantly damaging the performance of warlocks and rogues, and they were worried and overreacted to prevent another mistake like what happened before.
#3 Yunru Jul 28, 2015 4:17:29	They can use multiattack when they would be able to make two attacks. Till then consider beasts with tasty riders on a single attack.
#4 Cooperjera Jul 28, 2015 6:47:49	My interpretation of the errata is that the DM has a lot of control over the beast.  I errata and tweets on Sage advice lead me to believe that the following is the intent:   1.     Round 1: The ranger spends its action to give a command (i.e. Attack) to the animal. 2.     Round 1: The animal follows the given command (Attack). 3.     Round 1: The ranger has move available, bonus actions available (if prompted), and object interactions available. 4.     Round 2: The animal continues with the given command unless the DM determines the animal would act otherwise (i.e. the animal has taken enough damage that it decides to disengage). 5.     Round 2: The DM or player identify the action type of the animal.  If multi-attack is available then that may be an option. 6.     Round 2: The ranger has his normal list of actions available and does not need to give another command to the animal unless the ranger desires a change in animal action.   The Beastmaster class requires that the DM and player talk with each other and come to an agreement on how the animal reacts to situations.  There may be a few triggers that are setup for the animal response.  For example, when the animal reaches ½ health or ¼ health then the animal will disengage.  The DM and player will need to agree on who manages the animal.
#5 iserith Jul 28, 2015 7:08:23	Aldath wrote:
#6 Aldath Jul 28, 2015 8:24:53	So, would it be a better idea, in eny case, that the Beast Companion used a Bonus Action instead of a standard one to act? Then, should the level 7 class trait be changed to a Reaction instead? Like, the ranger can use its reaction to command the beast companion to disengage, help or dodge?   Giving him the ability to command the beast via Bonus Actions kills this trait.   Also: I'm bad with this but, according to the math, wouldn't a 1/2 Beast be more durable and overall useful than 1/4 CR Beasts?
(Reply to #4) Mechatarrasque	Cooperjera wrote: