Awaken as a beastmaster fix?

[Eslin]

So, beastmaster kind of sucks. You can't order the pet to multiattack, you have to use your action to get it to attack in the first place, and its health is far too low.

Now, the third one can't really be fixed, but I think awaken could probably fix the first two. If you had the druid awaken your companion (and it stayed loyal, which would be based on how you treated it - but presumably you're treating it well since you're a big animal lover) then it would have the intelligence to decide for itself or follow verbal commands.

[FadeAssassin]

That makes sense and could fix the beast master archetype.

[Cambrian]

Interesting idea. Would you look to have it player or DM controlled? Obviously following the characters orders either way.

[Tenmujiin]

Don't you command it to use an attack, which for most beasts is a multi-attack? Because using one of your (1-3) attacks to get a multi-attack is actually a good trade. The beast-master still makes no sense fluff-wise but if you assume that they are allowed to multi-attack the restrictions make more sense (balance-wise at least). Even if the book's wording ruled out multi-attacks (without saying, 'you can't have your pet multi-attack') I'd allow it as a DM, beast-masters need SOMETHING going for them.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Multiattack isnt really a concern for BMs because of the CR limits on companions.


but if you assume that they are allowed to multi-attack the restrictions make more sense (balance-wise at least).
If your concern is balance, BMs would be doing dangerous damage with pets on their own action budget!

Take the wolf, it has pack tactics (for LOTS of advantage), it's fast, and it can knock things over if it hits them.

[numerek]

its a fifth level spell so assuming your the same level as the druid you have had to go thru 6 levels of beastmaster first, then the spell takes 8 hours, 1000gp, and your companion still only has 36hp.

[Eslin]

Don't you command it to use an attack, which for most beasts is a multi-attack? Because using one of your (1-3) attacks to get a multi-attack is actually a good trade. The beast-master still makes no sense fluff-wise but if you assume that they are allowed to multi-attack the restrictions make more sense (balance-wise at least). Even if the book's wording ruled out multi-attacks (without saying, 'you can't have your pet multi-attack') I'd allow it as a DM, beast-masters need SOMETHING going for them.

That's using one of your (1-2) attacks to get an attack. Beasts have a specific list of actions they can take, and multi-attack isn't one of them. Which should be houseruled away, you're right.

[Ferrin33]

That's using one of your (1-2) attacks to get an attack. Beasts have a specific list of actions they can take, and multi-attack isn't one of them. Which should be houseruled away, you're right.

Multiattack is listed under the "Actions" part of monsters.

[archaeo]

That's using one of your (1-2) attacks to get an attack. Beasts have a specific list of actions they can take, and multi-attack isn't one of them. Which should be houseruled away, you're right.

You keep saying this with so much conviction. I think Tenmujiin wasn't reading the rules wrong; it seems totally natural that the multiattack feature in a monster's statblock suggests that, when it attacks, it does so with several attacks. I don't get where you come up with this interpretation of the rules. For example, on page 192, it says


The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists...Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.

The MM wording also only forbids multiattack when taking an attack of opportunity; it says nothing about whether or not it counts as taking the "Attack action." It seems pretty reasonable that they meant for it to work like that, especially given that there'd be no reason to have a giant badger pet without it.

[Eslin]

Multiattack is listed under the "Actions" part of monsters.

Kind of my point. The ranger has a specific list of actions he can get his pet to take, and multiattack isn't one of them. This should be houseruled away, though I should note it isn't always - played a game tonight where it wasn't allowed.

[Daishain]

Easier fix. Just have the companion act just as if it was the loyal trained creature it is supposed to be.

[Ramshack]

Kind of my point. The ranger has a specific list of actions he can get his pet to take, and multiattack isn't one of them. This should be houseruled away, though I should note it isn't always - played a game tonight where it wasn't allowed.

Any DM that doesn't allow the pet to make it's multiattack as an attack action is a d*ck lol.

[Demonic Spoon]

Kind of my point. The ranger has a specific list of actions he can get his pet to take, and multiattack isn't one of them. This should be houseruled away, though I should note it isn't always - played a game tonight where it wasn't allowed.

This is one of those things that is so obviously not RAI that it barely counts as a houserule.

[IcemanJRC]

I'm confused as to why someone would think a Beast companion couldn't multiattack? Multiattack is not an action, it's a modofier for the Attack action. So what is stopping it? The list of allowable actions pretty clearly includes Attack.

[Ghost Nappa]

Kind of my point. The ranger has a specific list of actions he can get his pet to take, and multiattack isn't one of them. This should be houseruled away, though I should note it isn't always - played a game tonight where it wasn't allowed.

Multi-Attack is not an action. It's a modification of the existing Attack action.

[Eslin]

Multi-Attack is not an action. It's a modification of the existing Attack action.

It's quite clearly listed as an action, not an attack. If it is an attack, not an action, then druids who have grabbed extra attacks, polymorph/shapeshift users and lycanthropes are by far the strongest melee combatants in the game.

[IcemanJRC]

I was pretty sure they were and that's why all of those things were talked about so much?

[Eslin]

I was pretty sure they were and that's why all of those things were talked about so much?

No, they're all very strong on their own - werebear's +1 armour, 19 strength and large size letting you wield 4d6 weapons, druid gets massive amounts of hp buffer for free on top of being a full caster, shapeshift turns the caster into a creature of their CR (which is supposed to be a challenge for a party of your peers). With extra attack letting you double all that, they're twice as strong.

[Ramshack]

Multiattack is taken as an attack action, just like additional attacks from fighter, paladin, ranger, barbarian etc are taken as an attack action. They are synonymous.

I'm having a hard time understanding why this is even being debated.

[IcemanJRC]

No, they're all very strong on their own - werebear's +1 armour, 19 strength and large size letting you wield 4d6 weapons, druid gets massive amounts of hp buffer for free on top of being a full caster, shapeshift turns the caster into a creature of their CR (which is supposed to be a challenge for a party of your peers). With extra attack letting you double all that, they're twice as strong.

Saying multiattack makes them twice as strong is misleading, considering it doesn't work on the axis that is already making them powerful. It's more like +1 gravy than ×2 world ender. But the point on multiattack still stands, it's not written as an action. The action you take is attack, multiattack is just a flavor of attack, like ranged.

[Demonic Spoon]

It's also true that it's highly ambiguous as to how/if at all Multiattack stacks with Extra attack.

anyway, I'm not convinced that the Beastmaster is actually bad. The biggest problem is that the beastmaster's abilities don't really make a ton of sense - either I, the ranger, sit there and do nothing and my pet attacks, or my pet sits there and does nothing while I attack. At level 5 you have the option of attacking once with each, but that will often not be optimal and so you run into the same issue.

[IcemanJRC]

It's also true that it's highly ambiguous as to how/if at all Multiattack stacks with Extra attack.

anyway, I'm not convinced that the Beastmaster is actually bad. The biggest problem is that the beastmaster's abilities don't really make a ton of sense - either I, the ranger, sit there and do nothing and my pet attacks, or my pet sits there and does nothing while I attack. At level 5 you have the option of attacking once with each, but that will often not be optimal and so you run into the same issue.

I mean, the big problem is, if it makes sense it breaks the early action economy. The easy fix is just to add more enemies so that a ranger bringing double trouble isn't a big deal, but that's not perfect. Also if you scale it the Ranger continues to win out on "Most Things Done in a Round" through the whole game. I personally think they maybe proofed against that too much, but I haven't given a lot of thought to it.

[archaeo]

It's also true that it's highly ambiguous as to how/if at all Multiattack stacks with Extra attack.

Nothing in the rules seems to prohibit stacking Multiattack and Extra Attack, except for Eslin's controversial RAI w/r/t "action" and "attack." I think, for now, it would be safe to treat as stacking. You can only get this interaction in four ways:

1) Beast Master, where there's no harm, since the only multiattacking pet seems to be designed with it in mind, given the low starting damage dice.

2) Druid multiclassing shenanigans: You have to take somewhat unfavorable class balance of Druid 15 / Martial 5, which loses a bunch of amazing Druid features in exchange for great DPR. I think you lose more than you gain.

3) Shapechanging and templates: This is a potentially very powerful option for high-level characters. A Level 20 Fighter getting multiattacks is nuts. I bet rolling with this as a DM has the potential to be fun, but the rules give enough space for DM fiat to limit things if need be.

At level 20, well-balanced parties are kind of absurd, and if they're using these synergies, they'll be punching well above their weight. Hopefully, the DMG will have a nice chunk devoted to campaigns at this level, since RAW allows for some very high-powered play that isn't hard to stumble into. We'll see what happens. It's possible that Extra Attack/Multiattack synergy was intentional.

[Eslin]

Saying multiattack makes them twice as strong is misleading, considering it doesn't work on the axis that is already making them powerful. It's more like +1 gravy than ×2 world ender. But the point on multiattack still stands, it's not written as an action. The action you take is attack, multiattack is just a flavor of attack, like ranged.

That is not true. For one, it does work on the axis that makes them powerful - a werebear fighter at level 20 has four attacks, if he uses those to multiattack he now has 8 2d8 attacks.

And multiattack is definitely an action. Your typical action section will look like this:

Claw. Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 feet, one target. Hit: 5 (1d5+5) fiver damage.

Multiattack. The pentadrone makes five claw attacks.



One is clearly an attack, the other is clearly an action.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

okay the real problem here is debating multiattack in a vacuum.

it's not like Rangers pick multiattack from a list of possible pet attributes, they actually have to pick pets. And the possible pets have some pretty useful abilities.

before you declare multiattack to op - or to not be op for that matter - you need to actually look at say wolf vs giant frog vs giant badger (or w/e it is with multiattack)

(AWB)