In Defense of the Beast Master

[archaeo]

So, more than a little digital ink has been spilled on the failures of the Beast Master. However, I feel as though they actually make fairly effective party members.

First, start by being a small-size Ranger. Stout Halflings are probably your best bet. This lets you ride a bunch of beasts. Heck, if you get a vulture and buy an exotic saddle for it (60 gp?), you can probably fly around from level 3!

At level 3, when your Ranger becomes a Beast Master, consider making your companion a Hawk; with a fly of 60ft., it will be easy to keep it out of danger if you care about keeping your companion alive. For a few levels, treat your animal companion as a buffed-up familiar, and it'll treat you well.

At level 5, the Ranger gets an extra attack, and it's useful to switch to one of the good melee companions. Mastiff, panther, and wolf are all fantastic; the mastiff and wolf get a chance to knock things prone every time they attack, and the panther can do so on a charge. At this point, your companion will always have a boosted HP, and with the +3 to AC you grant via your proficiency bonus, will be pretty hard to hit.

At level 7, you gain the option to give your beast a bonus action; if you're small and riding your beast, this can be totally rad, giving you a free Dash or Disengage every turn. Help is also huge, since it gives you an easy way to hand out advantage.

At level 11, congrats, you now have three effective attacks a turn. That's twice that your wolf or mastiff get a chance to knock down an enemy (now with a +4 bonus), and with three attacks a turn, you're on par with the Fighter.

Other good beasts include the giant wolf spider, which gets extra poison damage on every attack and can be a good scourt, the giant crab that grapples on every attack and has an insane base AC, and the giant frog that also grapples everything it hits. Meanwhile, giant badgers have innate multiattack, so you'll be tossing on frequent extra damage (5 attacks per turn at level 11), and their burrow speed gives them an easy way to get out of combat should the need arise.

So, all that said, I think that any niche where a Ranger would fit anyway (i.e. you won't want one in an urban campaign), the Beast Master will fit just as nicely. In exchange for the four bonuses you give up across the 1-20 spread as a Hunter, you gain a wide array of beasts, many of whom give pleasant bonuses, and if you're small, are all very helpful mounts. It might not always be optimal to go Beast Master instead of some other class/subclass, but it will probably be fun and cool!

n.b. as the MM says, not every kind of creature is stated; I certainly wouldn't have a problem, as DM, with the Beast Master giving whatever flavor they wanted to whichever beast, within reason. Vulture is a notable example; I might want to fly around and be the coolest ranger, but maybe not on the back of a carrion bird.

[Triclinium]

Dip rogue and the animal companion is an easy way to get sneak attacks.

Honestly I find it easier to think of the beast master as one whole character instead of a character and a friend. Mechanically the animal companion may not quite measure up to summons because action economy, but as a class feature it still seems rather good and more importantly, fun.

[Shadow]

I completely agree, as I have stated numerous times.
The Beastmaster gets no love, but in point of fact, it is a very good subclass in actual play. That may not hold true in higher levels (that remains to be seen), but in the low-to-mid levels it's actually quite effective.

[Scirocco]

A step in the right direction is giving them access to animal companions of CR up to BM level/3 including large ones. It keeps their pets from being as strong as Moonies but nonetheless gives them something a bit more suiting to 5ths main pet class.

No bear pets? WTF were they thinking?

[HasLogic]

if you want to defend a class as being good and useful then you should defend the whole class, not one specific build.

in order for a class to be useful it must be useful under a wide variety of circumstances, and with a large number or races and class feature choices.

[Shadow]

Have you actually played (or seen played) a BM Ranger HasLogic, or are you merely theorizing?
Because at my table, the BM is currently one of the most effective members of the party.
I know it looks craptastic on paper, but in play it's not craptastic at all.

[HasLogic]

Have you actually played (or seen played) a BM Ranger HasLogic, or are you merely theorizing?
Because at my table, the BM is currently one of the most effective members of the party.
I know it looks craptastic on paper, but in play it's not craptastic at all.

I am simply stating that if your trying to say that X class is both good and helpful to have in a party you have to judge the entire class, not just one build of it.

I was not commenting on if I thought you were right or wrong, although I think the beastmaster is very poor because he has to use an action to command his beast if for no other reason.

[archaeo]

I suppose I should've added that, while Stout Halflings are awesome Beast Masters, you can make it work with lots of races should you want to. Being able to ride your companion is a really awesome advantage, but hardly necessary. Something something Drizzt.

Edit: Oh, you mean like, defend the entire Ranger class? I think it's super clear that the Ranger, on its own, is totally fine; it's the Beast Master most people complain about. Hunter Rangers get a ton of sweet bonuses, and both subclasses have a bunch of incredibly useful spells. I don't think Rangers need defending, generally.

[CyberThread]

Small list of stuff to think over


1/4 beast or lower gets you...

Baboon

Badger

Bat

Blood Hawk

boar

cat

crab

eagle

flying snake

Giant frog... ( Swallow ? Never know might be good)

Goat
Mastiff

Octopus if underwater advdnure

panther...hey..you know...drizzit !

[Shadow]

I was not commenting on if I thought you were right or wrong, although I think the beastmaster is very poor because he has to use an action to command his beast if for no other reason.

That only matters for levels 3 and 4. Once you hit level 5, you attack once and your companion attacks once. In most cases, that attack can possibly spawn a bonus action attack by the animal or knock the target prone, both of which are better than your two attacks alone. It creates a situation where instead of two attacks, you get one, he gets one, and sometimes he gets a second or a status effect rider out of it.
Once you hit 11th level, it gets even better.

The BM is nowhere near as gimped as people seem to cry about. It just takes two crappy levels to get you there. Those two levels should be played with a little more caution, that's all.

[Xetheral]

Even if the OP is right that a Beast Master can be an effective party member, I believe the "failure" of the subclass goes well beyond balance concerns: the mechanics actively work against the thematics, and unless you single-class Beast Master (and maybe not even then) it's far too easy to lose your whole subclass to trivial damage.

1) The pet's inability to take an action without a command I find profoundly immersion-breaking. Consider:


The Ranger goes down and the pet does... what? Even by the most generous interpretation of the rules it's limited to movement, reactions, and any pet-specific bonus actions that it has. It can't defend the fallen master (can't Attack), it can't defend itself (can't Dodge), and it can't effectively retreat (can't Disengage). So it does what... flees? Possibly provoking an attack of opportunity? Some guard animal....
Because Multiattack isn't on the list of permitted commands, any pets that possess that ability (e.g. Giant Badger) can't use it if they're a Ranger's animal companion. Why does becoming an animal companion make an animal less effective? How does this make any sense at all? (A level 4 Beast Master with a Giant Badger has +2 to AC, Attacks, and Damage rolls, and 3 extra HP over a wild Giant Badger--in a one-on-one match the bonuses just barely let the pet surpasses the wild Badger's two attacks [4.4 applied DPR vs 4.5]).
Until level 7, what if the Ranger decides to do something with her action other than commanding the pet? Maybe she wants to interact with the environment, or take the Dodge action when she's in a tight spot, or Cast a Spell? So the pet just drools and moves its speed (possibly provoking an attack of opportunity) despite the adrenaline of combat?
Before level 7, if the Ranger and pet are both in melee and losing the fight, they can't both effectively retreat... since only one of them can take the Disengage Action, one or the other will provoke an attack of opportunity. So... because the Ranger is running away, the pet forgets its instinctual ability to defend itself? Or is it that the pet has no instincts at all and must be commanded by the Ranger is extreme detail, thus distracting the Ranger to the point that she can't defend herself?

If I move my group to 5e can I fix this? Sure, but it will require effectively rewriting the Beast Master subclass. The need to do so isn't exactly a selling point of the edition. For groups that have a different sense of immersion these issues may not be problematic, but I'm going to guess that I'm not the only one who dislikes the subclass's mechanics for thematic reasons.

2) Starting at mid level Pet HP are based on Ranger level, making multiclass Beast Master builds extremely problematic. When your entire subclass can be removed by HP damage, the level of damage required needs scale, or else the character becomes irrelevant. A Beast Master 8/Totem Warrior 8 has an animal companion with 32 HP in a level 16 environment. Once that HP is gone, all of the subclass features stop working, and the character might as well not be a Beast Master at all. (I'm not convinced that 64 HP for the pet of a single-classed Beast Master 16 is sufficient either, but 32 is silly.)

Again, easily fixable, but it certainly contributes to my sense that the subclass is indeed a "failure".

[Naanomi]

I've seen two beastmasters in play (one at my table, with a Giant Crab; one at a friend's table riding their flying dinosaur). Both seem effective in what they are doing; contributing in combat and out of it and not feeling worthless or outclassed (compared to many 3.5 characters I have played). If they are 'weaker' than other classes, and they very well might be, it is not by such a margin as to make them trivialized from either a 'have fun' perspective or a 'win the game' one.

[Demonic Spoon]

It seems pretty clear that RAI animal companions can still use multiattack.

That said, I agree with everything else Xetheral said. Balance be damned, your animal companion sitting there doing nothing because you haven't told it to attack something in the last 6 seconds is dumb

[Nizaris]

Simple fix if you're worried at action economy, once you give your pet an action it will continue to do it until told otherwise. Use your action and the wolf bounds after the Orc. Next turn it will auto-attack the orc when you use your action. If you want to change its target, it requires another command. Extra attack allows you to make a command and attack in the same turn. Bestial Furry only works on turns which you actively command the beast. Keeps the cap of total number of attacks you can make at 3 and allows your pet to continue doing whatever you commanded it even if you are incapacitated.

[archaeo]

1) The pet's inability to take an action without a command I find profoundly immersion-breaking. Consider...

Let's take these one by one.


The Ranger goes down and the pet does... what? Even by the most generous interpretation of the rules it's limited to movement, reactions, and any pet-specific bonus actions that it has. It can't defend the fallen master (can't Attack), it can't defend itself (can't Dodge), and it can't effectively retreat (can't Disengage). So it does what... flees? Possibly provoking an attack of opportunity? Some guard animal....

I would just note that the RAW doesn't cover this at all (I just tweeted Mike Mearls to ask about it), which is a failing of the rules for something likely to come up so frequently. Personally, I'd be inclined to let the Ranger control the pet freely while unconscious, as it seems like the most sensible way to handle it.


Because Multiattack isn't on the list of permitted commands

Where does it say this? The Ranger gives the command to attack, and the giant badger's stat block says "Multiattack: the badger makes two attacks." I hardly think this is some kind of huge stretch of the rules.


Until level 7, what if the Ranger decides to do something with her action other than commanding the pet? Maybe she wants to interact with the environment, or take the Dodge action when she's in a tight spot, or Cast a Spell? So the pet just drools and moves its speed (possibly provoking an attack of opportunity) despite the adrenaline of combat?

Until level 7, I think the Ranger would do well to keep their pet out of danger, and I don't see this as a huge nerf to the class. Note well that, barring some unusual circumstances w/r/t trained and purchased monsters, you can't summon an ally that gets its own initiative until level 5 -- the same level the Ranger gets the extra attack that gives them the ability to attack the same round they command their pet.


Before level 7, if the Ranger and pet are both in melee and losing the fight, they can't both effectively retreat... since only one of them can take the Disengage Action, one or the other will provoke an attack of opportunity. So... because the Ranger is running away, the pet forgets its instinctual ability to defend itself? Or is it that the pet has no instincts at all and must be commanded by the Ranger is extreme detail, thus distracting the Ranger to the point that she can't defend herself?

This may very well just be mechanically reflecting the fact that it's not easy to fight in concert with a beast. I would cheerfully award an inspiration die to a Ranger who used their action to allow the pet to disengage and take the opportunity attack personally, at least the first time it happened.


If I move my group to 5e can I fix this? Sure, but it will require effectively rewriting the Beast Master subclass.

Eh. I think the Beast Master rules are hardly under such a rules stranglehold. I think if you loosen the restrictions in order to feel better about the verisimilitude, you risk making Beast Master the outright best melee class instead of generally balanced with the other classes. Waiting for class features to come online is fine, in my opinion. Rather than think of the pet as idiotic, model it as a beast ill-suited for combat with the absurd range of monsters a level 3 character is likely to be facing. As the Beast Master grows in levels, it is better able to train its companions to fight. That seems pretty reasonable.


2) Starting at mid level Pet HP are based on Ranger level, making multiclass Beast Master builds extremely problematic. When your entire subclass can be removed by HP damage, the level of damage required needs scale, or else the character becomes irrelevant.

I think the game was only lightly balanced with multiclassing in mind, and Beast Master is hardly the only subclass ill-suited for multiclassing. I hardly think of this as a huge failure of the subclass. If you dip Beast Master, you're wasting your time; there are much better ways to obtain allies. If you dip another class, you lose very few HP, whereas the other features of Beast Master are keyed off the proficiency bonus.

----------

Edit:


Simple fix if you're worried at action economy, once you give your pet an action it will continue to do it until told otherwise. Use your action and the wolf bounds after the Orc. Next turn it will auto-attack the orc when you use your action. If you want to change its target, it requires another command. Extra attack allows you to make a command and attack in the same turn. Bestial Furry only works on turns which you actively command the beast. Keeps the cap of total number of attacks you can make at 3 and allows your pet to continue doing whatever you commanded it even if you are incapacitated.

While I suspect that this change would frequently make the Beast Master overpowered at early levels, it is worth noting that it doesn't take much house ruling in order to correct the perceived deficiencies. Some more time with the game being played will probably help show whether or not this kind of house rule is desirable.

[Daishain]

Simple fix if you're worried at action economy, once you give your pet an action it will continue to do it until told otherwise. Use your action and the wolf bounds after the Orc. Next turn it will auto-attack the orc when you use your action. If you want to change its target, it requires another command. Extra attack allows you to make a command and attack in the same turn. Bestial Furry only works on turns which you actively command the beast. Keeps the cap of total number of attacks you can make at 3 and allows your pet to continue doing whatever you commanded it even if you are incapacitated.
I agree its simple enough to fix with houserules. But the same can be said for any class's foibles. This however, is a case where we shouldn't have to come up with the solution. This was no simple oversight on some rarely used mechanic, but rather a deliberate design departure from the rules of previous editions, and it makes no sense.

Treating master and companion as conjoined twins rather than actual companions is dumb, both thematically and mechanically. Meanwhile, you know that there are plenty of DMs out there that will enforce those mechanics exactly as written.

It would have been much more appropriate for the companion to simply act of its own free will, according to its base nature, its relationship with its master, and whatever training it has, unless otherwise directed. The player and DM can discuss just how tactically savvy a particular animal would be without direction, but the idea is simple enough that few should have issues dealing with the basics.

[Shadow]

This was no simple oversight on some rarely used mechanic, but rather a deliberate design departure from the rules of previous editions, and it makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. Without it, action economy on BMRs would be broken and they would be the #1 OP class at low levels in the PHB. No one else would even come CLOSE in power.
You're right, this was a deliberate attempt to distance themselves from the OP nature of companions in previous editions.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it makes no sense.

[archaeo]

I agree its simple enough to fix with houserules. But the same can be said for any class's foibles. This however, is a case where we shouldn't have to come up with the solution. This was no simple oversight, but rather a deliberate design departure from the rules of previous editions, and it makes no sense.

Treating master and companion as conjoined twins rather than companions is dumb, both thematically and mechanically. Meanwhile, you know that there are plenty of DMs out there that will enforce those mechanics exactly as written.

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. Expending zero resources (other than the opportunity cost of choosing the subclass), the Beast Master can always have an ally in battle. As these forums are quick to point out, manipulating the action economy is a very powerful feature.

Without the limiting factors between levels 3 and 7, (arguably, 3 and 5), Beast Master would be the outright best martial class during that span of levels. Note that, in order to get attacks that knock enemies prone while also doing damage (as many of the beasts do), Fighters must spend superiority dice and Monks must spend ki; Barbarians can't do it unless they're Totem Warriors, and not until level 14! Otherwise, you have to spend one of your very limited ability increases on a feat to do it before the Beast Master.

You could fundamentally redesign the class in order to achieve a less "conjoined twins" feel, but in order to do so, you would have to heavily nerf the capabilities of the companion in order to keep it balanced with other classes.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

honestly, I think the biggest problem with the Beast Master is pet power disparity; Bird-rangers seem to take it in the chin in terms of combat power. Although I don't have the MM and I'm not sure about the Eagle's stat block.

[Symphony]

I would be okay with the whole brain-dead pet thing if the pets scaled a bit as the Beastmaster leveled. Even Ranger level/6 with an eventual increase in size to large would be a massive improvement (and actually allow medium characters to have a pet mount).

Even the Paladin's Find Steed spell allows for eventual upgrades, and that's an intelligent animal that you can re-summon at will and can communicate with telepathically from a mile away (hit points are a real problem, though).

[TheDeadlyShoe]

The pets do scale.

Or do you mean new pets? That would be incomprehensibly unthematic. :|

[Xetheral]

Archaeo, thanks for the in-depth reply to my response to your OP. I’ve tried to address the points you raised below.


I would just note that the RAW doesn't cover [pet actions with an unconscious ranger] at all (I just tweeted Mike Mearls to ask about it), which is a failing of the rules for something likely to come up so frequently. Personally, I'd be inclined to let the Ranger control the pet freely while unconscious, as it seems like the most sensible way to handle it.

Actually, I think the rules are quite explicit on this situation: the pet can't take an action unless the Ranger takes an action to command it. "[The pet] takes its turn on your initiative, though it doesn't take an action unless you command it to." (PHB, 93.) So even if you let the player control the pet while the ranger is unconscious, movement and pet-specific bonus actions are the only options available.


Where does it say [the Ranger can't command the pet to use multiattack]? The Ranger gives the command to attack, and the giant badger's stat block says "Multiattack: the badger makes two attacks." I hardly think this is some kind of huge stretch of the rules.

Accordingly to the list on page 93 of the PHB, the only actions the pet can ever take are: Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, and Help. The question then becomes: is Multiattack an action or an attack? If it is an action, then the ranger can't command the pet to use multiattack. If it is an attack, then the ranger can indeed command the pet to use multiattack, even so far as to use it multiple times per round starting at level 11 (plus on any Reaction attacks).

Weighing in favor of the "Multiattack is an action" interpretation:

Multiattack is listed under the heading "Actions" in the stat block.
Multiattack, unlike natural attacks, is not labeled with the words "Melee Weapon Attack" in the animal stat block.
Interpreting Multiattack as an attack would result in oddities such as Multiattack attacks of opportunity and Multiattack used with Extra Attack by multiclass Druids to make four attacks per round at level 5. All of these contravene the entire 5e approach to gaining extra attacks.
The only thing I can come up with weighing in favor of the "Multiattack is an attack" interpretation is that I agree with Demonic Spoon that the RAI was for Rangers to be allowed to command their pets to use multiattack. If I do move my group to 5e I'll houserule the list of permitted actions to include "other special actions detailed in the animal's stat block".


Until level 7, I think the Ranger would do well to keep their pet out of danger, and I don't see this as a huge nerf to the class.

Here I strongly disagree. If you have to keep your pet out of danger for the first four levels of the subclass, then the combat utility of the subclass for those levels is zero.


[The inability of a BM before level 7 to retreat along with her pet] may very well just be mechanically reflecting the fact that it's not easy to fight in concert with a beast.

Thank you for the suggested interpretation on this point, but it’s not enough to patch over what I view as an immersion-breaking mechanical flaw.


Eh. I think the Beast Master rules are hardly under such a rules stranglehold. I think if you loosen the restrictions in order to feel better about the verisimilitude, you risk making Beast Master the outright best melee class instead of generally balanced with the other classes.

This doesn’t seem to support your overall argument—could you clarify for me what you’re trying to say? If the verisimilitude problems are harder to fix than I’ve suggested, doesn’t that make the problems I’ve identified worse?


Waiting for class features to come online is fine, in my opinion. Rather than think of the pet as idiotic, model it as a beast ill-suited for combat with the absurd range of monsters a level 3 character is likely to be facing. As the Beast Master grows in levels, it is better able to train its companions to fight. That seems pretty reasonable.

I fear I must again disagree because it’s not a simple question of combat effectiveness. One shouldn’t need to wait for additional class features to come online for the in-game behavior of the mechanics to start making any sense.

I appreciate your suggestion of a thematic interpretation that you feel might preserve more verisimilitude, but I just don’t see it working for me: no matter how unsuited for combat an animal companion might be, it should never be more unsuited than a similar wild animal that knows how to Dash, Disengage, and Dodge all on its own, and will fight to protect those it cares about. (Also, I don’t like the idea of having to tell a Beast Master player that the solution to all the weird animal companion behavior is to simply assume the character is incompetent as an animal handler.)


I think the game was only lightly balanced with multiclassing in mind, and Beast Master is hardly the only subclass ill-suited for multiclassing.

You might be right, but neither point makes the multiclassing incompatibility any less of a problem.

__________


It seems pretty clear that RAI animal companions can still use multiattack.

Demonic Spoon, I agree with you about RAI. What is your preferred solution? Do you houserule multiattack onto the list of actions a ranger can order her pet to take? Or do you interpret multiattack as an Attack? If the latter, how do you deal with the complications I discussed above in my reply to Archaeo?


That said, I agree with everything else Xetheral said. Balance be damned, your animal companion sitting there doing nothing because you haven't told it to attack something in the last 6 seconds is dumb

Well said, and a far more succinct summation than I managed.

[archaeo]

Archaeo, thanks for the in-depth reply to my response to your OP. I’ve tried to address the points you raised below.

You're welcome! I'll try to do the same, though I'm going to condense some points.


Actually, I think the rules are quite explicit on this situation: the pet can't take an action unless the Ranger takes an action to command it. "[The pet] takes its turn on your initiative, though it doesn't take an action unless you command it to." (PHB, 93.) So even if you let the player control the pet while the ranger is unconscious, movement and pet-specific bonus actions are the only options available.

I would note that these rules certainly imply the Ranger is alive and kicking, and that being dead should invalidate them; I don't think I'm "house ruling" in doing so, anyway. However, if one wants to abide by RAW, the pet cannot do anything after the Ranger falls unconscious; the Ranger is incapacitated and can take no actions whatsoever other than make death saving throws. I think RAW more or less expects you to come up with a decision yourself.

(As an aside, I would totally let my Ranger make death saving throws for the pet should it fall to 0 HP. I think this would be fine by RAW as well, cf. p.198)


Accordingly to the list on page 93 of the PHB, the only actions the pet can ever take are: Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, and Help. The question then becomes: is Multiattack an action or an attack? If it is an action, then the ranger can't command the pet to use multiattack. If it is an attack, then the ranger can indeed command the pet to use multiattack, even so far as to use it multiple times per round starting at level 11 (plus on any Reaction attacks).

Snipping your list in favor of getting straight to the point, which is that "action" and "attack" are hardly given operational definitions in the PHB in the context of monster actions. Note well that "Multiattack attacks of opportunity" are explicitly called out as forbidden in the MM Introduction section. In my opinion, having Multiattack as a feature is the same as having Extra Attack as a fighter, or TWF. Further, the Giant Badger (the only CR 1/4 beast with multiattack) has lower AC and lower HP, and the multiattack certainly seems to be the only thing keeping it on par with the other things you can pick for your companion, suggesting the balance was intended to be struck with that in mind.


Here I strongly disagree. If you have to keep your pet out of danger for the first four levels of the subclass, then the combat utility of the subclass for those levels is zero.

So? In exchange for combat utility, you gain a lot of strength in the exploration "pillar". Certainly, a companion is a hardier and much more capable familiar than those you can gain with find familiar. It is also only a suggestion; given that it seems totally reasonable that the Ranger's pet get death saving throws, a pet falling to 0 HP stands a fine shot at being revived.

Also, the Ranger continues gaining combat abilities from the class itself, and remains a 1/2 caster. It's hardly like you're totally gimped; at worst, between level 3 and 5, you've given up 1d8 damage per round by going Beast Master instead of Hunter, whereas at level 5, giving up one of your extra attacks for your beast becomes a no-brainer (and gives you three attacks per round extremely early, if you're willing to allow the giant badger's Multiattack).


This doesn’t seem to support your overall argument—could you clarify for me what you’re trying to say?

Please see my reply to Daishain, where I think I cover why a Beast Master with a totally independent companion would be poorly balanced. It is certainly possible to narrate the pet's inaction without breaking verisimilitude, and I don't think the rules prevent that at all.


(Also, I don’t like the idea of having to tell a Beast Master player that the solution to all the weird animal companion behavior is to simply assume the character is incompetent as an animal handler.)

It isn't incompetence; it's that training a beast to fight alongside you is difficult. Nothing else in the rules allows you to do so; animal handling is almost entirely focused on mounts and calming wild animals, whereas buying trained beasts of war is expensive and highly limited by RAW. I like the idea of a Beast Master getting slowly better at training animals over the course of 12 levels.


You might be right, but neither point makes the multiclassing incompatibility any less of a problem.

Some subclasses are great for multiclassing, some aren't. So it goes!

To sum up: I think most of the "problems" here are problems of imagination, with all due respect. Without literally using magic, training wild animals to fight is difficult in 5e. With a bit of common sense RAI and a small dose of narrative fiat, most of the verisimilitude problems vanish without impacting balance.

That said, I can respect the difference of opinion, here. I think Mearls & Co. are trapped between a rock and a hard place with this subclass, and the result is something that not everyone can be happy with. My only goal, with this thread, is to make it seem like a viable option instead of the trap that most players seem to regard it as. Between levels 3 and 5, it's definitely somewhat lackluster; I think at level 5, even with a very restrictive reading of the rules, it becomes extremely capable.

[Cambrian]

Anyone have any high level experience with the sub class? I don't have the luxury to witness it in action myself and I'm wondering how it scales as nonmagical damage resistance becomes more common.

Overall I feel my complaints with the Beast Master are more based in verisimilitude rather than balance. It's probably exacerbated by most other parts of the edition being relatively more elegant.

[archaeo]

I'm wondering how it scales as nonmagical damage resistance becomes more common.

I think, in this case, your companion is better off using the Help command.

[Demonic Spoon]

Demonic Spoon, I agree with you about RAI. What is your preferred solution? Do you houserule multiattack onto the list of actions a ranger can order her pet to take? Or do you interpret multiattack as an Attack? If the latter, how do you deal with the complications I discussed above in my reply to Archaeo?

I would treat multiattack the same as the Extra Attack class feature.

Opportunity attacks let you make a single melee weapon attack, of which multiattack is not

Extra Attack and Multiattack do not stack, so multiclass druids do not attack more often.

As far as action economy goes, multiattack is not an action, it is a feature that activates when you take the attack action.

[Eslin]

That's a pretty convoluted way of ruling it, I'd just flat out add multiattack to the list of allowed actions.

[archaeo]

That's a pretty convoluted way of ruling it, I'd just flat out add multiattack to the list of allowed actions.

Eh! It might be worth a rule clarification, but I feel like the stat blocks are pretty intuitive about the fact that, when a monster takes an attack, it gets multiple swings.

Note well the "I feel," there; clearly, the debate in this thread may be proving me wrong!

[SaintRidley]

[list] Multiattack is listed under the heading "Actions" in the stat block.

So's every other attack in every other statblock. This leads to the logical conclusion that only PCs have attacks - everything else only has actions, and a Beastmaster can't order her animal buddy to attack because the animal buddy only has actions, and she can't command her buddy to take actions - only attacks.

[Person_Man]

It's not that the Ranger or his potential Animal Companion are terrible. Its that there is no positive reason to play one in comparison to other classes.

If you want a pet to control, literally any other spellcaster can Find and/or Conjure and/or Animate superior minions with few strings attached for commanding them, and every spellcaster except the Paladin has access to divination magic for any scouting duties.

And if you want superior "at-will" damage output, a Rogue, Fighter, or Warlock is a better choice.

[Xetheral]

Archaeo, thanks again for replying in such detail--I appreciate it! I think we understand each other at this point, so I'm going to reply to your post more-or-less as a whole, but if I missed something you want a specific reply to, please let me know.


It is certainly possible to narrate the pet's inaction without breaking verisimilitude, and I don't think the rules prevent that at all....

To sum up: I think most of the "problems" here are problems of imagination, with all due respect. Without literally using magic, training wild animals to fight is difficult in 5e. With a bit of common sense RAI and a small dose of narrative fiat, most of the verisimilitude problems vanish without impacting balance.

That said, I can respect the difference of opinion, here. I think Mearls & Co. are trapped between a rock and a hard place with this subclass, and the result is something that not everyone can be happy with.

Fair enough. That you're able to imagine the class in a way that makes the verisimilitude problems vanish for you is great, and hopefully (for the edition's sake) I'm in the minority when I view the problems as more intractable. Perhaps there is a way to imagine the class that I would consider palatable, and I hope I find it at some point. Meanwhile, if I do adopt 5e, I'll stick with rewriting the subclass as my preferred solution.


My only goal, with this thread, is to make it seem like a viable option instead of the trap that most players seem to regard it as. Between levels 3 and 5, it's definitely somewhat lackluster; I think at level 5, even with a very restrictive reading of the rules, it becomes extremely capable.

Just keep in mind that not all the complaints about the subclass are focused on balance and mechanical viability. :smallsmile: I'll definitely be keeping an eye on this thread for more insights into how much I can relax the restrictions without going overboard, and chime in when I have a viability-related comment. If you're able to convince people that it is indeed a viable option mechanically, that will make my (prospective) rewriting attempt harder, but the more I understand the balance issues involved the better a houserule I'd be able to craft for my table.

Thanks again.

__________


I would treat multiattack the same as the Extra Attack class feature.

Interesting, and a reasonable interpretation I hadn't thought of. I see two potential complications I'd like your opinion on:

1) At Beast Master 11, when the pet is ordered to take an Attack action does a pet with multiattack get to make two attacks (interpreting Bestial Fury as not stacking with multiattack), three attacks (interpreting Bestial Fury as stacking with multiattack), or four attacks (interpreting Bestial Fury as being transparent with multiattack)?

2) If a creature has both multiattack and Extra Attack (e.g. a multiclass Druid wild shaped into a bear) can the creature choose which one to use (e.g. use Extra Attack to make two bite attacks or two unarmed attacks, vs. multiattack's claw + bite)? Or does possession of multiattack prevent ever gaining Extra Attack via wild shape or class levels?

___________



Multiattack is listed under the heading "Actions" in the stat block.
So's every other attack in every other statblock. This leads to the logical conclusion that only PCs have attacks - everything else only has actions, and a Beastmaster can't order her animal buddy to attack because the animal buddy only has actions, and she can't command her buddy to take actions - only attacks.

My fault for not being clear. I'd meant that list item to be interpreted in concert with the next one:


Multiattack, unlike natural attacks, is not labeled with the words "Melee Weapon Attack" in the animal stat block.

I should have combined the list elements and written: "Multiattack is listed under the heading "Actions" in the stat blocks, yet unlike similarly-listed attacks is not labeled with the words "Melee Weapon Attack".

[Demonic Spoon]

To sum up: I think most of the "problems" here are problems of imagination, with all due respect. Without literally using magic, training wild animals to fight is difficult in 5e. With a bit of common sense RAI and a small dose of narrative fiat, most of the verisimilitude problems vanish without impacting balance.


Presumably, at the point where your opponent is actively attacking and hurting your companion, training wouldn't be necessary for your animal to fight back.


Interesting, and a reasonable interpretation I hadn't thought of. I see two potential complications I'd like your opinion on:

1) At Beast Master 11, when the pet is ordered to take an Attack action does a pet with multiattack get to make two attacks (interpreting Bestial Fury as not stacking with multiattack), three attacks (interpreting Bestial Fury as stacking with multiattack), or four attacks (interpreting Bestial Fury as being transparent with multiattack)?

2) If a creature has both multiattack and Extra Attack (e.g. a multiclass Druid wild shaped into a bear) can the creature choose which one to use (e.g. use Extra Attack to make two bite attacks or two unarmed attacks, vs. multiattack's claw + bite)? Or does possession of multiattack prevent ever gaining Extra Attack via wild shape or class levels?


1. Presumably four attacks. Not all creatures have multiattack, and (in theory anyway), creatures with multiattack are balanced against ones without it by having superior special abilities, AC, or other stats. For creatures without multiattack, Bestial Fury effectively doubles their damage output - why shouldn't it do the same for creatures with multiattack?

2. Extra Attack from different sources does not stack with itself; I would assume the same thing applies between multiattack and extra attack.

[Strill]

I think, in this case, your companion is better off using the Help command.

Telling your pet to help you is never a good idea. If you have your pet help you, then you're getting 2d20, take higher. If you instead didn't give your pet an action at all, you would get 2d20, take both.

The only time help is good is if you're helping a rogue who desperately needs a sneak attack.

[archaeo]

Archaeo, thanks again for replying in such detail--I appreciate it! I think we understand each other at this point, so I'm going to reply to your post more-or-less as a whole, but if I missed something you want a specific reply to, please let me know.

Thanks, Xetheral. I still think we disagree, but I appreciate that we could do so in a friendly fashion. I hope you have good luck rewriting the class to make it fit your vision better than Mearls & Co. could; I would suggest simply eliminating the level 3 feature, reserving the companion for level 7, and then allowing it relative independence. At level 3, perhaps the subclass could gain a 1-3/day spell that calls an independent beast forth for some period of time?

Alternately, while a truly independent companion would be a big boon to the Beast Master at early levels, it's possible I'm incorrect in my reading of the game's balance. If you have good luck with some house rules, please come back to share them here on the forum!

Edited to add:


Telling your pet to help you is never a good idea. If you have your pet help you, then you're getting 2d20, take higher. If you instead didn't give your pet an action at all, you would get 2d20, take both.

The only time help is good is if you're helping a rogue who desperately needs a sneak attack.

Your companion doesn't have to be helping you; a Beast Master and a Rogue play very nicely together. In any case, the only time this kind of thing is necessary is when fighting monsters with resistance or immunity to non-magical damage, since you might have a hard time convincing your DM that magic weapon works on teeth or claws. :smallbiggrin:

[Theodoxus]

And if you want superior "at-will" damage output, a Rogue, Fighter, or Warlock is a better choice.

Be any class, start as a Noble, take Retinue and build your own mini-pet as your squire. I'd started to do that, but never finished building my squire... I basically had the cast from A Knight's Tale following me around; my herald, my armorer and my squire. It was a blast - though never got fleshed out, sadly.

[archaeo]

Oh, hey, Mike Mearls responded to my question on Twitter (https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/516806014772195329). He at least agrees with my ruling, for what that's worth; the pet would aid and defend the downed Ranger.

It's pretty neat that you can just ask Mearls questions like that. The future is weird, y'all.