Ranger's Beast Companion

[BootStrapTommy]

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). You can use your action to verbally
command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge,
or Help action. Once you have the Extra Attack feature,
you can make one weapon attack yourself when you
command the beast to take the Attack action.
Does this BOTHER ANYONE ELSE?!

[Eslin]

That you have to give up your attack and RAW the beast can't even multiattack?

No, nobody has any objection to that =P

[Baveboi]

You do realize you only have to give up your attack to actively direct its attack, right? It surely can defend itself without you babysitting it, but it is still there as a feature so you can have more agency on the attack.

Why does everyone assume because it isn't listed in the class features the animal suddenly is incapable of attacking? I mean, there is no mention that it can attack without you handholding it through, but there is no mention it can't. Which is saner - that a Panther will bite and claw at a bandit that tried to attack it or that it will stay there and take it like a chump?

[BootStrapTommy]

Why does everyone assume because it isn't listed in the class features the animal suddenly is incapable of attacking? I mean, there is no mention that it can attack without you handholding it through, but there is no mention it can't. Which is saner - that a Panther will bite and claw at a bandit that tried to attack it or that it will stay there and take it like a chump?
You probably should reread the quote of the rules.

It takes its turn on your initiative, though it doesn't take an
action unless you command it to.
So yes, it stands there and takes it like a chump...

[TheDeadlyShoe]

It's an action economy thing. Pet classes can radically break it.

It's only really an issue for two levels which is annoying but not class-breaking.

[Baveboi]

So yes, it stands there and takes it like a chump...

That is terribly dumb. As I DM I would assume command of the beast and, sure, I wouldn't be a master tactician with it (flanking and all that), but the least I can do is to act like it would act. A boar would charge a threat, a panther would try to run and get a better on pounce on it, etc.

Of course, the player is allowed to overrule my actions, but with a command. THEN I see why it is costly, because you would have to override the creature's main instinctive behavior. Otherwise it is just plain dumb.

[Easy_Lee]

Does this BOTHER ANYONE ELSE?!

Yes, it bothered the hell out of me, which is why I figured out how to break it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?376418-Breaking-BM).

The basic trick is that companions require an action to direct, but mounts don't. So, by riding your companion, you're able to make it take the dash, disengage, and dodge actions without requiring an action. BMs can take the panther companion, which is medium sized and has 50' move and 40' climb. A halfling BM riding his panther can move 100' a round, or 80' up a wall, without spending any actions, bonus actions, or even his own move. This is not an abuse, it's how mounted combat works this edition. Pick up mounted combatant and you're in very good shape.

I've also included lots of optional stuff that, if your DM allows it, can make the character even more powerful. But if your DM doesn't agree to the first bit (riding your companion and treating it like a mount), don't even bother playing BM at all. Play a conjurer wizard or warlock 2 / lore bard X instead and show him just how badly you can abuse RAW without any rules interpretation.

[BootStrapTommy]

Otherwise it is just plain dumb.
Which is ultimately my problem with it, and the reason I brought it up. Might as well grab the Hunter archetype, for all the good the Beast Master does. It's just another notch in the long storied history of screwing up what should conceptually be one of the coolest classes.


It's an action economy thing. Pet classes can radically break it.

It's only really an issue for two levels which is annoying but not class-breaking.
It is a HUGE problem for two levels, when both of you cannot attack on the same turn, and it is still a problem after because it means you cannot take full advantage of multiply attacks, for either you or the beast.

Yes, it bothered the hell out of me, which is why I figured out how to break it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?376418-Breaking-BM).
I love you.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

It is a HUGE problem for two levels, when both of you cannot attack on the same turn, and it is still a problem after because it means you cannot take full advantage of multiply attacks, for either you or the beast.

No not really. If you look at the encounter balance charts its expected any given party takes a pretty good power jump at level 5, and extra attack is the big reason why. Rangers getting extra attack at level 3 would be pretty bad, not moon druid bad but bad.

You can still use your companion to lock down enemies, assist rogues, scout, make attacks when your options are limited in some way, etc.

[Easy_Lee]

I love you.

=D

It's kind of like Jungle Book.

http://www.junglebook-collection.nl/pmwiki/uploads/Main/mowgli-bagheera.jpg

[Gurka]

Honestly, what I wish they had done is break the ranger down to three archetypes; One being the Hunter (ranged focus) with more spells and only THAT sub-spec gets Swift Quiver, One that's melee focused, getting the melee oriented aspects of hunter as they stand now, and Beastmaster.

If I'm not mistaken, without swift quiver, the ranger is limited to two attacks. Without the other damage steroids offered from the Hunter archetype, even giving the beastmaster and his beast separate action economies, he'd still be throwing out no more than 3 or 4 attacks (between both himself and his beast) each turn, which is no more than the fighter manages, and as the beast's attacks are generally inferior to a player's attacks, and the Ranger himself will have somewhat mediocre attacks (lacking any ability giving it extra umph), I don't see that it'd be a major problem late game.

If the ranger having too many attacks is still a concern, then they should have given the base class only a single attack, and included the Extra Attack feature in the other Archetypes, leaving it out of the BM build.

I'm sure there are other ways it could potentially be broken, but honestly it's not that difficult to come up with viable alternatives... I'm more than a little disappointed with the Wizards crew who put together an all around good edition here... It feels to me like they didn't want pets at all, but only had one archetype for the Ranger, so they threw in the Beastmaster an hour before the book went to print. Maybe that's just me though.

[Easy_Lee]

If I'm not mistaken, without swift quiver, the ranger is limited to two attacks. Without the other damage steroids offered from the Hunter archetype, even giving the beastmaster and his beast separate action economies, he'd still be throwing out no more than 3 or 4 attacks (between both himself and his beast) each turn, which is no more than the fighter manages, and as the beast's attacks are generally inferior to a player's attacks, and the Ranger himself will have somewhat mediocre attacks (lacking any ability giving it extra umph), I don't see that it'd be a major problem late game.

Go BM and use a panther. Use attack command with panther. Have it use pounce for the attack so it gets a bonus action bite attack. You get an attack as per the boon at 5. Get a bonus attack from polearm master, crossbow expert, or just plain dual wielding. That's four attacks at lvl 5, or 5 attacks at 11+.

And it's completely RAW, too; your DM would have to explicitly deny your panther's bonus attack, in spite of it clearly getting one as written. Plus it adds your proficiency to its attack and damage rolls. It's not bad.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

and as the beast's attacks are generally inferior to a player's attacks
This is only sorta true. The potential beast companions generally don't match a players power in terms of attack and damage, but they have a lot of proc abilities (like pounce, knockdown) and special battle abilities (like pack tactics and flyby).

There's also more exotic stuff, like poison damage and grapples and the frog-swallow.


Get a bonus attack from polearm master, crossbow expert, or just plain dual wielding. That's four attacks at lvl 5, or 5 attacks at 11+.
Unfortunately one clear downside of the Beastmaster is that they have lots of things to do with bonus actions. Bonus action spells, pet commands, and bonus attacks are all competing for the bonus slot.

[Gurka]

Go BM and use a panther. Use attack command with panther. Have it use pounce for the attack so it gets a bonus action bite attack. You get an attack as per the boon at 5. Get a bonus attack from polearm master, crossbow expert, or just plain dual wielding. That's four attacks at lvl 5, or 5 attacks at 11+.

And it's completely RAW, too; your DM would have to explicitly deny your panther's bonus attack, in spite of it clearly getting one as written. Plus it adds your proficiency to its attack and damage rolls. It's not bad.

Ahh, I had made a mistake in that I had thought the Ranger's attack as part of the beast's attack used his bonus action. It definitely leaves more options on the table since I see that it does not. That said, the panther's pounce is nice, but far from a guarantee. Unless the target is already prone, the panther must move 20 ft prior to attacking, it must hit with a claw attack, and the opponent must also fail a DC 12 strength check (which against most enemies is a 50/50 or better for them), and only then do they get to make that extra bite attack.

I'm also a bit unclear at the moment since the beast has zero action economy of it's own if it's bonus action would actually require the Ranger's bonus action... or perhaps not be usable at all, as it states the strict and specific options for the beast to use during it's turn, and states that it does NOTHING otherwise... it may not be allowed to use bonus actions at all under certain interpretation. I'd definitely not rule it that way in my games, but I can see the ambiguity there to allow for such.

Seems to me that the small character with the mount pet is still the best option... though I do also like the idea of the guy with the tiny venomous snake as a pet. it's the only snake that doesn't require a save vs it's poison... and I haven't found anywhere that states it... does something have to state that it applies the poisoned condition, or does taking poison damage (ie actually getting poisoned) apply it for a time? If getting poisoned makes you poisoned (seems like a no-brainer, but those don't really exist RAW) then the little snake would be amazing as a pet to totally shut down big-bads.

[Kerilstrasz]

It takes its turn on your initiative, though it doesn't take an
action unless you command it to.

Can't you just find a way to speak it's language (or made it understand yours) and teach him shorter commands? like fast whistles for example.
or in the same way, explain to it to always attack whoever you attack whenever you attack unless you tell it not to?

in this way you kinda give your pet's control to DM, but it now has its own actions.