So you want to play a Beast Master?

[Baptor]

Got a friend who really wants to play a Beast Master for RP reasons, but is tempted to ditch it because he believes the "lose an action" to make the beast take an action is gimp. As his DM, I'm inclined to agree with that.

So I've noticed there are some old threads debating this topic, but none are very new and I don't want to raise the dead so I am starting a new one.

First, where does everyone stand on the BM issue?

Second, has anyone run a BM or seen one in play? Was it effective?

Third, if you played/ran a houseruled BM, what was the houserule and how did that go?

I am leaning towards making commanding the beast a bonus action. That way it consumes an action of some kind and requires a sacrifice but not a stupid one.

[Shadow]

The ranger player in our group played a beast master. We changed nothing. He was perfectly fine. There is a span of two levels where you have to choose (3rd & 4th) between you attacking or your beast attacking. The beast's attacks are usually better than yours are at those levels due to riders, so you're not losing anything. It's no big deal, and the people that claim it is are overreacting.
In our game, directing your beast to attack was considered taking the attack action. So beast gets one, ranger gets bonus if TWFing, ranger gets one at 5th, and beast gets another at 11th.
That's fighter level attack numbers, and two of them probably come with riders of some sort. It's nothing to scoff at by any means.
The halfling wolf rider beast master in our group had two hand crossbows and a scimitar, dual wielding ranged or ranged/melee with XbX. He was extremely versatile and not only was he not underpowered in any way, he was stealing the spotlight in many cases.
The subclass needs very little, if any, changes as is.

In later levels the beasts get squishy. The 4/level bit basically gives it wizard w/Con10 HP. Next time we'll be boosting it to 5-or-6/level.

[GiantOctopodes]

Got a friend who really wants to play a Beast Master for RP reasons, but is tempted to ditch it because he believes the "lose an action" to make the beast take an action is gimp. As his DM, I'm inclined to agree with that.

So I've noticed there are some old threads debating this topic, but none are very new and I don't want to raise the dead so I am starting a new one.

First, where does everyone stand on the BM issue?

Second, has anyone run a BM or seen one in play? Was it effective?

Third, if you played/ran a houseruled BM, what was the houserule and how did that go?

I am leaning towards making commanding the beast a bonus action. That way it consumes an action of some kind and requires a sacrifice but not a stupid one.

I used to feel that Beast Master was just that bad. More recently, I've been feeling that Hunter is just *that good*. Still, I definitely support anything that raises up Beast Master to be more on par with the choices available to the Ranger if they go the other route.

As Every Other method of commanding creatures (animate objects, animate dead, conjure X,you name it) uses a bonus action (for potentially multiple creatures) it taking an action instead of a bonus action struck me as horrible from the get-go, so I completely back your decision on that one. Compare the Paladin's Find Steed, which allows you to have an intelligent, independent mount capable of taking actions (including attacking) without *any* cost on your end, and suddenly having it cost a bonus action vs a full action for the Ranger does not seem remarkably overpowered at all. This is doubly true because the Ranger has plenty of things competing for the use of said bonus action- conjuration spells are prevalent in the list, as are spells which either have a bonus action casting time or grant options for using a bonus action such as swift quiver. Two weapon fighting and Crossbow Expert also use bonus actions for attacks, so the Ranger will still be giving up an attack to have the Beast attack, even when spells have been exhausted and he's using his "at will" style abilities. Trust me, the Ranger will still feel it, and it will still be a meaningful choice whether to order the beast around or to make a different action.

Doing so does essentially invalidate the level 7 archetype feature, though. Personally, I'd also upgrade that archetype feature, and allow the beast to dash, disengage, or dodge (but probably not help, that seems like it could be abused) without the expenditure of any kind of action. This is a bit more of an extreme change, but hey, once again- the paladin mount can already do that (and help and attack besides). This is the foundation of your entire archetype. It should be pretty good, imho.

One thing, though- if making the changes I recommend above, I would get rid of this section: "Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one weapon attack yourself when you command the beast to take the Attack action." It just stops being necessary once the changes above have been made, and is potentially problematic from a balance standpoint.

Oh, and in terms of the inevitable points being raised about how it's better than other summons, because it gets your proficiency bonus to AC, attack rolls, and damage- a Necromancer Wizard can spend 2 spell slots per day to get 8 permanent minions, all of whom can aid each other for advantage (mechanically a bit better than a +5, so in effect, proficiency bonus) on attacks, and whom get your proficiency bonus on damage (but with 4 attacks which have proficiency bonus, instead of max 2), with a total of 8x their base HP + 8x your wizard level, instead of Base HP -or- 5x your Ranger level. In short, both the Paladin's mount and the Necromancer's Thralls are arguably (and situationally) better, even after making the proposed changes, so I definitely don't think it's taking things too far.

And no, haven't played with a Ranger at all yet, much less a BM ranger. I don't think anyone in the group has any interest in playing one at all, other than myself, and I'm pretty sold on hunter ranger, so this is coming from someone with 0 actual experience in the matter, so if it goes horribly wrong don't blame me :smallsmile:

I would be very interested to hear, if you decide to do this, how it goes, though.

[Giant2005]

I used to feel that Beast Master was just that bad. More recently, I've been feeling that Hunter is just *that good*.

This is pretty much the crux of it. The BM is by no means a bad Archetype, it is probably one of the better martial Archetypes but the Hunter is just amazing. It is leaps and bounds above all of the other Martial Archetypes and tends to leave the Beastmaster looking a little sad in comparison even if it too is a really solid Archetype.

[Ashrym]

I think beast master is implemented as an out of the box leader role flavor. Bonus help actions in and out of combat is grant advantage on attacks and grant advantage on skill checks with little cost. Hunter is good, but beast master is have less combat, more versatility in my experience so far.

[Pramxnim]

I've been playing a Beastmaster myself in two different campaigns, one at level 3 and another one at level 10, and I don't feel the archetype is underpowered at all by RAW. It could be my choice of animal companion (the Flying Snake), but I don't feel as if I'm underpowered at all. If anything, in the 10th level game, my character did the most damage to the foes we were fighting (3 slaadi) and the beast companion was a significant part of that fight. At level 11, I get 3 attacks total, which puts my damage on par with the Fighter of the group (in fact, my beast companion does more average damage than the sword and board fighter per attack).

The thing is, giving the Beastmaster Ranger the ability to let the beast attack as a bonus action at level 3 would be stepping on the Monk's toes. The lowest damage dealing beasts in the monster manual (not counting those dealing only 1 damage per hit) deals 1d4+2 or 1d6+1 damage (average 4.5) per hit. With the ranger's damage bonus, this goes up to 6.5 average damage, which is higher than the Monk's Martial Arts damage (1d4+3 = 5.5). Meanwhile the Ranger still gets his or her own weapon attack, which does comparable damage with the Monk's normal attack. The Ranger also has the option of attacking at range, AND getting a small rider on the beast's attack (like a trip attempt with a wolf companion). All in all, this is just marginalizing the monk's unique thing as being the only class with access to two attacks that add ability modifier to damage, at lower level without feat investment. This is not counting beasts with attacks that deal more damage than its CR suggests, chief being the Flying Snake (average 8 damage) and Giant Poisonous Snake (average 11 damage on a successful Con save)

In general, before PCs gain a +4 modifier in their attack stat, beast companions will do more damage and hit just as often, if not more often (their attack bonus range from +5 to +8 at levels 3-4) than PCs. This means trading your attack for your beast's attack is completely fine and even the preferred choice at low levels. The beast companion's damage will remain competitive with a PC's at all levels, assuming no magic items (again, the average damage for a beast with the lowest starting damage scales from 6.5 to 10.5 per hit). The beast's accuracy may fall off eventually if it's something that only starts with a +3 to hit (since PCs can get up to +11 with melee attacks, and +13 with ranged attacks), but if the beast starts out with +6 to hit, it stays competitive all throughout the PC's career. The PC may acquire magic items, but there's nothing preventing the DM from giving the beast a similar upgrade if they feel like the beastmaster ranger needs some love.

In terms of AC, the beast companion is actually all over the place. Ranging from 11 to 15 starting AC, it can be hit more often than the broad side of a barn, or as slippery as an eel. This is where I feel beast choice matters a lot, and it takes certain interesting beasts out of the picture since they have such low AC (looking at you, giant frog). In my opinion, I feel like a 14 starting AC is appropriate for a beast companion.

I think that the BM ranger doesn't need any mechanical changes to its class chassis to make it competitive with other classes. It may read horribly, but the mechanics actually play quite well in game. If anything, I think a standardization of beast stats may be a better way of subtly buffing the Beastmaster Ranger. Note that most beasts have super low hp compared to the average hp that their CR would suggest (CR 1/4 creatures typically have 36-49 hp, while most beasts at that range have 10-20 hp) and have higher than average damage, AC and lower than average save DCs (beasts typically impose 11 or 12 DC saving throws), so if we don't take the DMG monster guidelines as gospel, we could arrive at the following guidelines for creating an effective BM companion:


HP: Any (since this gets replaced by the Ranger hp bonus)
AC: 14-15 (I personally think 14 is the sweet spot. 15 AC is reserved for slippery beasts that have low damage or less useful riders)
Attack Bonus: +5-6
Damage: Average 6-10 (I feel the Giant Poisonous Snake's damage is too high, but the Flying Snake's is just right. Assign lower average damage to beasts that have attack riders, and higher damage to those that don't)
Skills: Proficiency with 1 or 2 skills, makes the beast more useful out of combat
Saving throw: Proficiency with 1 of STR, DEX or CON saves. Makes use of the Ranger's bonus and makes for a more resilient companion
Attack riders: Up to one: Grappler (applies a grapple on hit), Trip (imposes a STR save or knocks prone), Poison (3d6 damage, lower average damage on hit to 5 if this option is taken)
Special Combat Ability: One of: Flyby, Pack Tactics (+5 attack bonus if this option is chosen), Relentless, Pounce, Charge, Dive, Swallow.
Special out of Combat Ability: Up to one of: Standing Leap, Blindsight, Blindsense, Keen Sense, Spider Climb


Note: Every ability that imposes a saving throw has a DC of 13.
Stat out a beast following the guidelines above and use it in place of an existing beast's statblock and you end up with a pretty effective beast companion. For additional help in scaling the beast companion, consider lowering the special ability DC to 11, but let the Ranger's proficiency bonus apply to it. This would scale the DC from 13 to 17, which is quite respectable even at later levels. I've decided to balance the beast options to the Flying Snake, since I feel that it's the beast companion that offers the best stats despite being only a CR 1/8 creature.

[GiantOctopodes]

The thing is, giving the Beastmaster Ranger the ability to let the beast attack as a bonus action at level 3 would be stepping on the Monk's toes. ... All in all, this is just marginalizing the monk's unique thing as being the only class with access to two attacks that add ability modifier to damage, at lower level without feat investment.

This seems like an incredibly specific thing to be unique to the monk. It's also not true- the Barbarian gets a bonus action attack which adds his ability modifier to damage at level 3, the fighter and most pressingly, the *Ranger* can take two weapon fighting style and get a bonus action attack whch adds ability modifier to damage, the War Cleric gets a bonus action attack which adds ability modifier to damage from 1st level on, which though limited in the times it can be used per day, by 3rd level (once they get spiritual weapon) they can have up to 24 rounds of bonus action attacks which add ability modifier to damage. The Necromancer gets (multiple) bonus action attacks which adds proficiency bonus at level 6. All of these are without feat investment, but that's also an unfair limitation- unless you're playing without feats, all classes, including Rangers, get the ability to take a ranged or melee feat which allows for an attack with a bonus action, as soon as level 4, or level 1 if they're variant human.

That's precisely my whole point, really- the Ranger *already* has access to a bonus action attack which adds ability modifiers to damage, starting from level 2. Trading theirs for the beast's is a potential damage upgrade and has some utility effects, true. However, it's exactly that- a small upgrade (from what you indicated, 2 points of damage assuming the character has an ability score of 16. If you have an 18, it's an increase of a single point of damage) with a rider effect applied to that bonus action.

Moving it to a bonus action, as such, does not actually increase the number of attacks the Ranger gets until level 11. At level 11, true, the number of attacks is increased by 1. The Ranger can at that point get 4 every turn, whereas he would otherwise only be able to get 3. A lot of people might say "woah woah woah, that's some fighter level number of attacks right there!" not realizing that monks have had that number of attacks from the moment they got flurry of blows, and by now also have options for riders on their attacks, and more pressingly- that we shouldn't necessarily be comparing against the fighter, but rather the hunter. The hunter got an increase in the number of attacks at 3- any time two opponents are within 5' of each other, he now has 3 attacks per turn, 4 once he hit level 5. Now, you might still say "But that requires the incredibly situational event of having an enemy next to another enemy, it can't be relied upon, whereas this is every round!" And I would respond that we're not talking about level 3, we're talking about level 11. At level 11, the Hunter gets multiattack- the melee hunter gets a maximum possible 8 attacks from whirlwind, +1 from horde breaker, +1 from his bonus action, for 10 attacks total. At will. The Ranged specialist gets a maximum possible 12 attacks, + 1 from horde breaker, +1 from his bonus action, for 14 attacks total. Now, it is unlikely they will ever actually get that number of attacks. However, they can get more than you might think, especially if they have a friendly monk or warlock "block puzzle" style pushing enemies together for them, or a friendly grappler dragging them into position. As such, getting 1 more attack than the hunter option best case scenario, while getting 6-8 attacks fewer worst case scenario, doesn't seem even remotely overpowered.

Note that by 11, the ranger also has Call Animals. They can have 8 giant poisonous snakes attacking as a bonus action on their turn, so in reality, moving it to the more "standard" command spot of a bonus action is potentially a *decrease* in power, as an 11th level Ranger as is would get 3 attacks + up to 8 bonus action attacks from his summons, whereas now it would be 2 attacks + 8 bonus action attacks from summons -or- 2 attacks + 2 attacks from his beast companion. A ranger now could use lightning arrow as a bonus action, then get one attack and two from his beast. If it was a bonus action, he would get lightning arrow cast as a bonus action, then just his two attacks. Once Swift Quiver is available (at level 17), he is choosing between 2 attacks + 2 of his *or* 2 attacks + 2 of the beast's, rather than just getting 5 attacks total.

In short, it's not actually much of a buff. Why do it? Because then the Ranger, like the Necromancer, Cleric, or Paladin, can do other things (such as desperately turning a winch to lower a bridge) while his minion defends him, instead of standing there stupidly while the enemies walk past. Having it tied to your action precludes any non-attack options from being used, unlike every other instance of commanding things in the game. Allowing a greater variety of actions to take place than just attacking over and over makes for a more interesting game in my humble opinion. It's quite possible that he's perfectly fine as is. You would know better than I, having played one. However, the proposed changes will not break anything, and ultimately, I myself never *will* know how a vanilla Beastmaster would play, since I would never play one. Even with the proposed changes, I'd take hunter. This would at least make it a harder choice though, and might sway me to try beastmaster at some point after I've already given hunter a whirl. Once I've played both, and can effectively compare them, I'll let you know my findings.

[Shadow]

The thing is, giving the Beastmaster Ranger the ability to let the beast attack as a bonus action at level 3 would be stepping on the Monk's toes.

It's not an issue of stepping on a monk's toes.
It's an issue of options.
At low levels your bonus attack isn't used by much. Maybe an off hand attack.
At higher levels your bonus action will be used quite regularly. Off hand attack. Casting a bonus action spell, of which you have many. Swift quiver usage. Whatever. You don't want to have to decide whether to use your class abilities of your subclass abilities. Changing it to a bonus action forces that choice. Leaving it as is doesn't.

Leaving itr as is really is the best option. The beast master has an undeserved bad rep by theory-crafters, but is actuality it works extremely well, as I have said earlier and as Pram has just said again.
Those two levels (3 & 4) *appear* to be a weak point on paper, but in reality it's still quite balanced in play.
I suggest leaving it alone.

[Ashrym]

It's not an issue of stepping on a monk's toes.
It's an issue of options.
At low levels your bonus attack isn't used by much. Maybe an off hand attack.
At higher levels your bonus action will be used quite regularly. Off hand attack. Casting a bonus action spell, of which you have many. Swift quiver usage. Whatever. You don't want to have to decide whether to use your class abilities of your subclass abilities. Changing it to a bonus action forces that choice. Leaving it as is doesn't.

Leaving itr as is really is the best option. The beast master has an undeserved bad rep by theory-crafters, but is actuality it works extremely well, as I have said earlier and as Pram has just said again.
Those two levels (3 & 4) *appear* to be a weak point on paper, but in reality it's still quite balanced in play.
I suggest leaving it alone.

I concur. Rangers, including beastmasters, work better than people seem to think. I still add movement in whirlwind but that's beside the point with beastmasters.

[Xetheral]

The ranger player in our group played a beast master. We changed nothing. He was perfectly fine.

...

In our game, directing your beast to attack was considered taking the attack action. So beast gets one, ranger gets bonus if TWFing, ranger gets one at 5th, and beast gets another at 11th.

...

In later levels the beasts get squishy. The 4/level bit basically gives it wizard w/Con10 HP. Next time we'll be boosting it to 5-or-6/level.


I suggest leaving it alone.

Not everyone will interpret directing the beast to attack to be considered taking the attack action, so it's worth highlighting that (arguable) raw departure for others who don't have your table's in-play experience with the class. Also, why do you suggest leaving the HP (and the rest of the subclass) alone if your table is going to houserule an increase next time?

[Vogonjeltz]

Got a friend who really wants to play a Beast Master for RP reasons, but is tempted to ditch it because he believes the "lose an action" to make the beast take an action is gimp. As his DM, I'm inclined to agree with that.

Beast is, almost always, going to be better than the Ranger attacking. Take the Wolf, for example. +6 to hit, 2d4+4 damage, the attack is likely made at advantage AND it comes with a DC 11 or be prone rider. Advantage + Possible prone is simply better than the default attack by a Ranger.

[Shadow]

Not everyone will interpret directing the beast to attack to be considered taking the attack action, so it's worth highlighting that (arguable) raw departure for others who don't have your table's in-play experience with the class. Also, why do you suggest leaving the HP (and the rest of the subclass) alone if your table is going to houserule an increase next time?

That was in regards to changing directing the beast to a bonus action. Leave that lone IMO.

Directing the beast to attack being designated as taking the attack action is only an extremely slight departure from the RAW. Your player is declaring Attack as his action, he just controls two creatures for that declaration. It can be argued that this was the intention anyway, and that the way it was worded was just the easiest way to describe it due to the level 3 & 4 shenanigans before you get extra attack.

As for the HP, is wasn't a huge issue. The beast just seemed a little squishier than we would have liked, so another 25-50% HP would go a long way toward making him feel less squishy.

The subclass functions perfectly fine as it is. We just interpreted one thing slightly differently and wanted to make the beast a little bit more durable.
And in case it matters, our table also says that all rangers have animal friendship known without using a spell known slot, but it can only be used to befriend another companion unless you actually take it as a spell known.

[ad_hoc]

In terms of AC, the beast companion is actually all over the place. Ranging from 11 to 15 starting AC, it can be hit more often than the broad side of a barn, or as slippery as an eel. This is where I feel beast choice matters a lot, and it takes certain interesting beasts out of the picture since they have such low AC (looking at you, giant frog). In my opinion, I feel like a 14 starting AC is appropriate for a beast companion.

Agreed.

The problem is that the base HP of the beast will eventually be disregarded. A beast that has low HP will be more powerful for you because that is an aspect that you get to disregard.

Flying Snake: AC 14 HP 5
Giant Frog: AC 11 HP 18

Would it be terrible to use base HP + 4*level?

[Pramxnim]

Using base HP + 4xLevel still wouldn't close the gap that a 2 or 3 point difference in AC makes. Most beasts that a Ranger can use have less than 20 hp, which means next to nothing at higher levels compared to some extra AC. The way the beast companion scales will always favor beasts with more AC and to hit bonus, since HP is largely a moot point after level 5. This is why I think a more standardized beast companion stat block is better than just taking piecemeal from the monster manual, since most options there are traps gameplay wise (even if they are fine fluff wise).

By making sure the beast is effective in some way regardless of choice, we allow the beastmaster ranger to select a companion based on his or her preference in terms of fluff instead of crunch.

[ad_hoc]

Do you think it is a problem that Beast Masters need to stick to Medium 1/4 CR beasts?

I wouldn't want to play a Beast Master if the game was going beyond 10th level. At that point I would want something bigger to match how crazy powerful my character was becoming.

[Giant2005]

Agreed.

The problem is that the base HP of the beast will eventually be disregarded. A beast that has low HP will be more powerful for you because that is an aspect that you get to disregard.

Flying Snake: AC 14 HP 5
Giant Frog: AC 11 HP 18

Would it be terrible to use base HP + 4*level?

But the same is true of AC. As soon as you get wealthy enough to afford some decent barding, your companion's natural AC will be ignored just as much.

[Demonic Spoon]

Something frequently not mentioned is that beasts can get barding. If you have a low AC beast, barding is going to help a lot, especially high-DEX beasts like the panther.

[themaque]

I would love to hear if anyone had good work increasing the HD restrictions for higher level Rangers.

[Ellington]

Another underrated aspect of the Beast Master is simply bumping your party size up by one. Having a wolf with an advantage on perception checks may turn your party's number of dice rolled from 4 to 6, giving you a considerably higher chance of successfully making them.

Mechanically, I don't have a problem with the Beast Master ranger apart from the low HP of the animal companion (and problems with the ranger class outside of subclasses but that's another debate). I hope WotC alleviate this by offering a feat in later splat books but as it stands Beast Master is okay. It's certainly better than the Hunter if only for the utility it brings.

Thematically, and this is a big issue for me, I'm against giving up your auto attack at lower levels. When I sign up to be some badass wilderness warrior I want to be able to use my bow/swords whatever alongside the other fighting types. Even though the damage output from the animal companion makes up for you not attacking it just doesn't feel right. And that's my biggest issue with the Beast Master.

[Baptor]

Now that the initial discussion has wound down (thanks for the input!) Let me throw a wrench in: this is a solo campaign. He will be all by himself.

Now what do you think?

[MadBear]

Now that the initial discussion has wound down (thanks for the input!) Let me throw a wrench in: this is a solo campaign. He will be all by himself.

Now what do you think?

Still fine, as long as you scale it down for a 1 person game. By that I just mean that the CR system is based off of 4 people, and if it's just him it'll be off a bit. Still, he should be able to hold his own just fine.

[Baptor]

Still fine, as long as you scale it down for a 1 person game. By that I just mean that the CR system is based off of 4 people, and if it's just him it'll be off a bit. Still, he should be able to hold his own just fine.

Haha, no. There are certain effects, like stun or incapacitate, that are inconvenient for 2+ players but a "you lose" button for solos. You have to do more than adjust encounters or its game over very quick.
My concern for the BM is that his companion won't actually be of much use if he's stunnned or can't take actions. So I am working on a way to modify the rules so that his companion can be like an extra character but also take advantage of BM abilities.

[Kornaki]

Now that the initial discussion has wound down (thanks for the input!) Let me throw a wrench in: this is a solo campaign. He will be all by himself.

Now what do you think?

In this case balance is irrelevant. The only reason to be concerned about it in general is because different players might have different power levels. I would recommend just doing whatever you guys think will be fun.

[Giant2005]

Haha, no. There are certain effects, like stun or incapacitate, that are inconvenient for 2+ players but a "you lose" button for solos. You have to do more than adjust encounters or its game over very quick.
My concern for the BM is that his companion won't actually be of much use if he's stunnned or can't take actions. So I am working on a way to modify the rules so that his companion can be like an extra character but also take advantage of BM abilities.

The Beast Master is more suited to endure such things than any other class in the game, purely by virtue of there being two of them. If the Beast gets stunned, the Ranger himself can fight on - every other class would be quite screwed if they were stunned.
Also having double the HP pools makes you more resistant to things like the Sleep spell than classes without a companion would be.

[Pramxnim]

If it's a solo game, you don't have to worry about interclass balance at all. Feel free to let him use his bonus action to command the beast to attack, or heck, just let the beast act independently of him on the same initiative.

As for beast choice, in my opinion the best option is to let him pick whatever suits his fancy, then adjust the beast's stats a little bit to make sure it doesn't die too easily and so that it can still contribute in combat.

By this I mean giving it 14 AC, at least a +5 bonus to hit, and have it deal 6 to 8 damage a turn on average. This is all before the Ranger's proficiency bonus is added, btw.

In terms of HP, the beast is meant to have roughly half the ranger's hp. If you guys feel that's too low, it's not unreasonable to give it an extra 1 or 2 hp per level. Then, build encounters for a party of 1.5 PCs and you should be set to give the player a challenging game!

[umbrellasamurai]

In our game, directing your beast to attack was considered taking the attack action. So beast gets one, ranger gets bonus if TWFing, ranger gets one at 5th, and beast gets another at 11th.


I might be misinterpreting your wording, but you can only attack with a bonus action if you made a normal Attack during your turn, so prior to level 5, a ranger can't attack at all if his or her beast attacks.

[Shadow]

I might be misinterpreting your wording, but you can only attack with a bonus action if you made a normal Attack during your turn, so prior to level 5, a ranger can't attack at all if his or her beast attacks.

Read the first sentence of that quote again. Or continue reading the thread where it's explained again.

[Easy_Lee]

See my sig, Breaking BM. BM can be very good if you're a little creative.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

i think the big thing that lead to people underestimating beastmaster is how the beasts are not listed in the same place as the beastmaster. so you don't get to see all the cool rider effects and special abilities that beasts have until you really dig into the class.

I do feel like the CR 1/8 creatures aren't scaled by the BM very well. A guy who wants say a mastiff is screwing himself over a little compared to a CR 1/4 beast.

[Giant2005]

i think the big thing that lead to people underestimating beastmaster is how the beasts are not listed in the same place as the beastmaster. so you don't get to see all the cool rider effects and special abilities that beasts have until you really dig into the class.

I do feel like the CR 1/8 creatures aren't scaled by the BM very well. A guy who wants say a mastiff is screwing himself over a little compared to a CR 1/4 beast.

Agreed.
Personally I think they should have made the stats and the Beast independent from one another. Ideally, there would have been a point buy system of sorts so you could customize the stats of your Beast but if they standardized the beasts, the most likely route would have been them all having set stats regardless of what the animal looked like. Something like that would be a nice optional rule at least in case someone wants to choose an animal that really is quite crappy (For thematic reasons) but it would have to be optional otherwise a whole lot of diversity would be lost.