Ranger Pet Questions

[Myzz]

1. Do Pets contintue to do what they are told after a Ranger spends an entire action telling them to do it... Or is it one and done?

2. If the answer to 1 is One and done, would it substially effect anything if all the actions a Companian is commanded to do except attack, were continued until commanded to do otherwise?

3. Is this action utility as big an issue as my players and I see it?

[Madfellow]

1. Do Pets contintue to do what they are told after a Ranger spends an entire action telling them to do it... Or is it one and done?

2. If the answer to 1 is One and done, would it substially effect anything if all the actions a Companian is commanded to do except attack, were continued until commanded to do otherwise?

3. Is this action utility as big an issue as my players and I see it?

1. I believe it's one and done.

2. I believe it would.

3. Yes, action economy is important, but you should also consider that animal companions get some really good rider effects on their attacks that PCs simply don't. Also, Extra Attacks and the natural progression of the Beastmaster Ranger gives you a lot more to work with once you get a few levels under your belt.

[asorel]

I would rule that a command given to the animal could be made out as a single action, or something ongoing if the player wished it. For instance, 'kill that ogre' is a single, rather simple command that would take multiple actions to accomplish.

Also, keep in mind that an animal companion isn't going to just stand there if not commanded to do anything. It will still attack based on its own threat analysis. This is usually no more complex than 'attack nearest enemy." Beasts with hunter instincts, such as wolves, would target the most-injured or weakest enemy.

[Drayrs]

An interesting set of questions that came up in an adventure I have been getting ready to start is how a Ranger's companion interacts with the mounted combat rules, especially those for movement. If you are riding your mount (a la Halfling and medium companion) do you still need to use your bonus action to control its movement, or can you sacrifice your move action as per the normal mounted rules?

[Balor777]

Ranger does VERY good damage as is.
Dont forget a wolf if you fight at his side in melee with TWF will
allways have advantage on attacks.At 5 level you will deal 3 attack per round you and your pet plus 1d6 damage from hunters mark.If you do the math you will realise that things start to go over the place if the beaat autoattacks....

[Naanomi]

Beasts can get reaction attacks without a command according to devs; so even without commanding them you can position them well for battlefield control this way.

[Edenbeast]

Also, keep in mind that an animal companion isn't going to just stand there if not commanded to do anything. It will still attack based on its own threat analysis. This is usually no more complex than 'attack nearest enemy." Beasts with hunter instincts, such as wolves, would target the most-injured or weakest enemy.

They will also run if you hurt it.. It requires some animal handling to make it attack again the brute who almost cut off its tail. It's not a bag of potatoes, but neither a robot you set to auto-attack.

I suggest to use the flanking rules from the DMG. It improves the value of an animal companion.

[Theodoxus]

Thinking about it, a good compromise would be to grant the AC all the Ranger Proficiency benefits per normal when the Ranger is directing it to attack, and only the animals base abilities when auto attacking. This way, your wolf isn't looking at you funny because you decided to use your action for something other than saying 'sic that guy', but doesn't break verisimilitude because your man eater is licking his balls instead of ripping the throat out of the minion you said was priority #1 12 seconds ago.

[archaeo]

The fundamental problem with Beast Master's design is that it really stretches the tension between the game and the simulation.

BM's math works out fine. If you treat the animal companion as the PHB suggests you're free to do, with the ability to take short rests to recover HP and the courtesy of death saving throws, the fragility stops being such a big deal. If you follow the rules, BMs broadly keep up in damage with the other classes and gain the ability to apply specific conditions without sacrificing resources. As is, the only time when the animal sits there, dumb and doing nothing, is between levels 3-5, when it really can't do anything without taking up a significant part of the Ranger's action economy.

The problem is the simulation: it just feels weird to have a pet sitting there doing nothing if not specifically commanded. If I could rewrite the section myself, I'd be inclined to add a few sentences. Something like, "The process of training an animal to fight alongside you requires significant effort. Initially, beasts require such specific directions and encouragement that it requires the Beast Master's full attention during a given turn. Later, as the Beast Master gains more skill in training and working alongside their animal companions, they are able to direct their companions with only a portion of their action."

[CrusaderJoe]

My biggest issue is that the level 7 ability "Exceptional Training" should have been part if the Ranger's Companion.

Hell the Familiar from Find Familiar can take those actions without being told to so giving the ranger a quick set of instructions for his animal shouldn't be unbalanced. Sure the familiar can't attack but the spirit of an animal has more brains and ability in battle than a beast master companion. And the companion is sussposed to be a battle companion!

The BM comes online at level 7, and even then it is a sad excuse of a subclass when you actually look at what is happening.

[archaeo]

Hell the Familiar from Find Familiar can take those actions without being told to so giving the ranger a quick set of instructions for his animal shouldn't be unbalanced. Sure the familiar can't attack but the spirit of an animal has more brains and ability in battle than a beast master companion. And the companion is sussposed to be a battle companion!

Familiars are CR 0 creatures that receive no advancement whatsoever during the course of an adventure. From level 1 to 20, the familiar remains a CR 0 creature, and while they have greater independence on the battlefield, even using the Help action is likely to get them splattered instantly. Meanwhile, as soon as the Ranger gets a companion, the beast gets a bevy of bonuses that only increase over the course of an adventure. Heck, even with d10 hit dice, Rangers really won't have that much more HP than their beasts at level 3, and given that beasts get a proficiency bonus to AC, the companion will be rocking acceptable defenses.

It's perfectly balanced, it just creates a stumbling block for people who think that, apparently, it's easy as pie to find a wolf out in the wild and instantly gain the ability to fight while commanding it at the same time. At worst, you have two levels where you have to make a decision; at level 5, it's probably usually optimal for a Ranger to give up their second attack in favor of a beast attack, and at level 3, it may make sense for the BM to forgo most attacks for beast attacks given the riders beasts receive.

[CrusaderJoe]

Familiars are CR 0 creatures that receive no advancement whatsoever during the course of an adventure. From level 1 to 20, the familiar remains a CR 0 creature, and while they have greater independence on the battlefield, even using the Help action is likely to get them splattered instantly. Meanwhile, as soon as the Ranger gets a companion, the beast gets a bevy of bonuses that only increase over the course of an adventure. Heck, even with d10 hit dice, Rangers really won't have that much more HP than their beasts at level 3, and given that beasts get a proficiency bonus to AC, the companion will be rocking acceptable defenses.

It's perfectly balanced, it just creates a stumbling block for people who think that, apparently, it's easy as pie to find a wolf out in the wild and instantly gain the ability to fight while commanding it at the same time. At worst, you have two levels where you have to make a decision; at level 5, it's probably usually optimal for a Ranger to give up their second attack in favor of a beast attack, and at level 3, it may make sense for the BM to forgo most attacks for beast attacks given the riders beasts receive.


That's not balanced.

You get a mobile, scouting, independent, spell conduit bird (most likely going to be an owl at first). This bird can fly in, use the help action, and fly out of range of the enemy without taking an OA. The caster can have advantage each round on attack rolls if they want without much risk of losing their familiar. Also they give nothing up for this besides a spell known. With how many spells the wizard knows and with the tome warlock... That's nothing given up.

On the other hand you get a, let's say wolf, that has takes the actions of the ranger, can't think for itself, and is more of a reliability than a help until level 5, and even then they still don't come fully online tille level 7. The wolf needs extra HP and defenses because it doesn't get the goodies that the familiar does.

The ranger also has to give up being a hunter to get the companion.

So yeah, really balanced. The game is far more than who can deal damage. Tactics is a thing, one which the BM can't take advantage of.

So really the Ranger should take magic initiate (Wizard: Mage Hand, Presdigitation, Find Familiar) if they want to take Beast Master Subclass. This way if you can actually be a beast master if you fluff your familiar as a real animal called upon. Then you have two creatures running amok on your enemies.

[archaeo]

That's not balanced.

It's balanced insofar as it delivers roughly the same DPR as the other martial classes while simultaneously providing a second figure on the battlefield that won't die when something sneezes at it.


You get a mobile, scouting, independent, spell conduit bird (most likely going to be an owl at first). This bird can fly in, use the help action, and fly out of range of the enemy without taking an OA. The caster can have advantage each round on attack rolls if they want without much risk of losing their familiar.

Well, unless it tries this trick on virtually anything that can use a ranged attack, especially in a world where the antagonists presumably know that familiars are a thing. That owl has all of 1 HP, after all.

As for advantage on attack rolls, it's worth noting that the Help action won't apply to creatures making saving throws against spells. You could probably build a mage that only uses spell attack rolls, however.


On the other hand you get a, let's say wolf, that has takes the actions of the ranger, can't think for itself, and is more of a reliability than a help until level 5, and even then they still don't come fully online tille level 7. The wolf needs extra HP and defenses because it doesn't get the goodies that the familiar does.

What do you mean, it doesn't get goodies? It gets big bonuses to its stats. How is that not a goodie?

And the beast can absolutely think for itself, but, and this is the important part of what I'm saying, training it to fight alongside you is not an easy task.

And as for the liability it presents, if you're unable to spend 8 hours to get a new beast, the absolute worst thing that can happen is you tell your pet to hang back for a few combats.


So yeah, really balanced. The game is far more than who can deal damage. Tactics is a thing, one which the BM can't take advantage of.

What? How does that follow? BM can be extremely tactical; you're fundamentally given the ability to have two things at once on the battlefield, and simply existing provides a material advantage. At low levels, you have a choice of whether to use the Ranger or their companion to attack, while at high levels you're going to be spreading out damage in a way that few other martial classes have the ability to do. You can stay in the fight while simultaneously Helping the Wizard, you can have your companion barrel over to trip an enemy for the Fighter, you can hand out advantage to the Rogue.

All this in addition to the utility of having a companion that will follow your orders, serve as an extra perception roll in many circumstances, and can act as a very functional scout provided you learn speak with animals (and why wouldn't you). And that doesn't even take into account obvious builds like Halfling Beast Masters, who can have protected access to some of the best mounts in the entire game.

Oh, and you're still a Ranger with half-casting and a bevy of useful class features for any party that ever finds itself outside towns. At the very worst, you've given up Hunter subclass features, which means that, in exchange for everything a BM can do, you forgo exactly four features. They're four really cool features, probably, and definitely increase the Ranger's in-combat abilities, but they're still four things in exchange for a huge amount of tactical flexibility.

[Garimeth]

It's balanced insofar as it delivers roughly the same DPR as the other martial classes while simultaneously providing a second figure on the battlefield that won't die when something sneezes at it.



Well, unless it tries this trick on virtually anything that can use a ranged attack, especially in a world where the antagonists presumably know that familiars are a thing. That owl has all of 1 HP, after all.

As for advantage on attack rolls, it's worth noting that the Help action won't apply to creatures making saving throws against spells. You could probably build a mage that only uses spell attack rolls, however.



What do you mean, it doesn't get goodies? It gets big bonuses to its stats. How is that not a goodie?

And the beast can absolutely think for itself, but, and this is the important part of what I'm saying, training it to fight alongside you is not an easy task.

And as for the liability it presents, if you're unable to spend 8 hours to get a new beast, the absolute worst thing that can happen is you tell your pet to hang back for a few combats.



What? How does that follow? BM can be extremely tactical; you're fundamentally given the ability to have two things at once on the battlefield, and simply existing provides a material advantage. At low levels, you have a choice of whether to use the Ranger or their companion to attack, while at high levels you're going to be spreading out damage in a way that few other martial classes have the ability to do. You can stay in the fight while simultaneously Helping the Wizard, you can have your companion barrel over to trip an enemy for the Fighter, you can hand out advantage to the Rogue.

All this in addition to the utility of having a companion that will follow your orders, serve as an extra perception roll in many circumstances, and can act as a very functional scout provided you learn speak with animals (and why wouldn't you). And that doesn't even take into account obvious builds like Halfling Beast Masters, who can have protected access to some of the best mounts in the entire game.

Oh, and you're still a Ranger with half-casting and a bevy of useful class features for any party that ever finds itself outside towns. At the very worst, you've given up Hunter subclass features, which means that, in exchange for everything a BM can do, you forgo exactly four features. They're four really cool features, probably, and definitely increase the Ranger's in-combat abilities, but they're still four things in exchange for a huge amount of tactical flexibility.

I'm AFB atm, but can you elaborate on this? From the thread I gather there is something that you get at level 7 (not sure what it is or does) but how do you get this good DPR and action economy? My initial readthrough of the BM ranger left me with the impression of a VERY subpar build, but what you are describing sounds like what I wanted it to be, so I must have misunderstood something or I am doing it wrong.

Thanks in advance!

[CrusaderJoe]

I'm AFB atm, but can you elaborate on this? From the thread I gather there is something that you get at level 7 (not sure what it is or does) but how do you get this good DPR and action economy? My initial readthrough of the BM ranger left me with the impression of a VERY subpar build, but what you are describing sounds like what I wanted it to be, so I must have misunderstood something or I am doing it wrong.

Thanks in advance!

At level 5 the ranger can attack and then the Beast can attack.

At level 7 you can use a BA to have your Beast perform Dash, Dodge, Disengage, or Help action on your turn. This is something a familiar can do from level 1 for for NO Action on the wizards part.

It takes level 11 to give the beast two attacks. At this point the ranger would get 1 attack and the beast would get two.

It takes 11 levels for the damage to come online. Most games I've seen in the past couple decades end around level 10 if people are lucky...

Meanwhile everyone else comes online at level 3, sometimes even before that.

If that is what people want to call balance then sure, let's call that balanced.

[archaeo]

I'm AFB atm, but can you elaborate on this? From the thread I gather there is something that you get at level 7 (not sure what it is or does) but how do you get this good DPR and action economy? My initial readthrough of the BM ranger left me with the impression of a VERY subpar build, but what you are describing sounds like what I wanted it to be, so I must have misunderstood something or I am doing it wrong.

Thanks in advance!

Well, CrusaderJoe's explanation of the class features is correct enough, though I disagree with his editorializing for all the reasons I gave above.

In reality, where people actually play D&D, the Ranger gets two attacks at the same time as every other martial character, and effectively three attacks when the Fighter gets its third attack. I don't have the charts and graphs in front of me, but the Fighter's three attacks aren't going to be meaningfully more powerful than a single Ranger swing and two Beast attacks. Meanwhile, the Fighter either has to spend superiority dice or give up attacks to do things like grapple, trip, or shove an opponent, while the Ranger gets to do it for free by virtue of having the companion. Or, you can just pick the companion that can multiattack, giving you five attacks per round, every round.

Meanwhile, the action economy balance hardly deserves the opprobrium being hurled at the subclass. For two entire levels, you have to choose between Ranger attack and beast attack; you still get all the other benefits of having a companion, including easy means of communication via speak with animals, but for a couple levels, you're still learning to fight alongside your companion.

It isn't a subpar build at all. The only problem Beast Master has is that the subclass wasn't written with enough narrative footholds for people from previous editions, who seem to be used to a very different paradigm for this kind of class.

Consider this: what if instead of "being" the Ranger, you were the beast? What if the companion was actually the PC, and the "Ranger" was the bruiser companion? It would seemingly take very little effort to turn this around; imagine a pixie and its golem, or some other arrangement. Would that solve the problem? Because I see no other problem than "but why doesn't my dog do stuff on his own!?"

[Xetheral]

I see no other problem than "but why doesn't my dog do stuff on his own!?"

I think another large problem with the subclass is simply that it's poorly written. Apparently no one can agree on what the Beastmaster can do using the rules as written OR the rules as intended, let alone agree on what the rules should be in order to create an enjoyable subclass. And the power of the class depends a lot on just what one thinks those rules are. For example:


Can Beastmasters use TWF in the same round they order their pet to attack? Does the answer to this question change when the Ranger reaches level 5?
Can Beastmasters order their pets to use multiattack? If yes, does multiattack replace each attack, or is it an action?
Can Beastmaster pets move or take actions if the Ranger is incapable of giving a command?
Can Beastmaster pets take reactions?

Given the debates in previous threads, I'd argue that all of these questions are evidently ambiguous both by RAW and by RAI (although at least one of them has a clarifying tweet). And yet, the power of the subclass depends a great deal on the answers. A Beastmaster whose DM says "yes" to all of the above questions is significantly more capable than a Beastmaster whose DM says "no" to all of them. Accordingly, it's understandable that there is dispute over whether the subclass is any good.

True, each table will eventually find an interpretation or a series of houserules that works for them, but that doesn't get excuse the original problem that the subclass is poorly written.

[archaeo]

Can Beastmasters use TWF in the same round they order their pet to attack? Does the answer to this question change when the Ranger reaches level 5?
Can Beastmasters order their pets to use multiattack? If yes, does multiattack replace each attack, or is it an action?
Can Beastmaster pets move or take actions if the Ranger is incapable of giving a command?
Can Beastmaster pets take reactions?


The last two items have had clarifying tweets which make sense (yes to both, obviously). The second item seems self-explanatory; if they couldn't use multiattack, why would the MM have companion-ready beasts that are only notable for having the multiattack feature? Without multiattack, the giant badger isn't worth the ink it was printed with, unless a burrow speed is really valuable to you.

The first one is as easy as reading the TWF rules:


When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand.

Emphasis mine. So, when you, the Ranger, take the Attack action, you can use your bonus action to swing your sidearm. If you're level 3 or 4, and command your beast, you forgo your ability to use TWF; you've given up your action, and TWF requires that you use that action on Attack. When you reach level 5, you can use TWF when you Attack and then give up your Extra Attack to let your beast attack.

Now, would it be better if the PHB spelled all of this out in plain English (other than the TWF thing, which is, you know, spelled out in plain English)? Sure! Clarification on multiattack would be useful for more than Beast Masters, and the last two are only in question because the way BM is written makes it seem possible.

[Giant2005]

Emphasis mine. So, when you, the Ranger, take the Attack action, you can use your bonus action to swing your sidearm. If you're level 3 or 4, and command your beast, you forgo your ability to use TWF; you've given up your action, and TWF requires that you use that action on Attack. When you reach level 5, you can use TWF when you Attack and then give up your Extra Attack to let your beast attack.
I don't believe anyone disputes that part. The point of contention is whether or not the attack action is being used when you order the beast to attack. The fact that you get your remaining attacks of the attack action (sacrificing one by giving the order) suggests that it is similar to the Battlemaster's Commanding Strike in that you are still using the attack action and using one attack to give an order. If that is true, then there is no reason why you couldn't use your off-hand weapon for a bonus attack as you have used the attack action and filled all of the requirements.


The second item seems self-explanatory; if they couldn't use multiattack, why would the MM have companion-ready beasts that are only notable for having the multiattack feature? Without multiattack, the giant badger isn't worth the ink it was printed with, unless a burrow speed is really valuable to you.
That one has been clarified (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/08/rangers-badger-multi-attack/) too.

[archaeo]

I don't believe anyone disputes that part. The point of contention is whether or not the attack action is being used when you order the beast to attack. The fact that you get your remaining attacks of the attack action (sacrificing one by giving the order) suggests that it is similar to the Battlemaster's Commanding Strike in that you are still using the attack action and using one attack to give an order. If that is true, then there is no reason why you couldn't use your off-hand weapon for a bonus attack as you have used the attack action and filled all of the requirements.

I still don't understand why this is a "point of contention." The PHB is pretty clear:


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.

You don't use your Attack. You use your action. When you get Extra Attack, you can use an Attack action in addition to the command. That Attack action triggers TWF, if you want it to. Seems simple enough to me, and bringing Battle Master into it just muddies the water, and something something specific beats general. There's no universal rule for "commanding," as every mechanic that lets you command something else specifies exactly how and when you can do it.


That one has been clarified (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/08/rangers-badger-multi-attack/) too.

Welp. Somebody tweet Crawford about the last one, and we have all four knocked down. Hopefully they'll add some clarification for the second printing and the online errata.

[Xetheral]

The last two items have had clarifying tweets which make sense (yes to both, obviously). The second item seems self-explanatory; if they couldn't use multiattack, why would the MM have companion-ready beasts that are only notable for having the multiattack feature? Without multiattack, the giant badger isn't worth the ink it was printed with, unless a burrow speed is really valuable to you.

The first one is as easy as reading the TWF rules:


When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand.

Emphasis mine. So, when you, the Ranger, take the Attack action, you can use your bonus action to swing your sidearm. If you're level 3 or 4, and command your beast, you forgo your ability to use TWF; you've given up your action, and TWF requires that you use that action on Attack. When you reach level 5, you can use TWF when you Attack and then give up your Extra Attack to let your beast attack.

Now, would it be better if the PHB spelled all of this out in plain English (other than the TWF thing, which is, you know, spelled out in plain English)? Sure! Clarification on multiattack would be useful for more than Beast Masters, and the last two are only in question because the way BM is written makes it seem possible.

(Emphasis in final sentence added.) Note that my entire point is that the subclass was badly written. If you need a collection of four tweets to know how the subclass works, I think it's pretty clear there is a problem.

Re: Multiattack
The argument relating to the giant badger is a good one, but it's equally valid to argue that multiattack isn't on the list of actions you can command a pet to take. Furthermore, even if the pet can use multiattack, it's not clear whether at level 11 that gives the pet 2 attacks (i.e. multiattack is a valid command), 3 attacks (i.e. multiattack works like extra attack) or 4 attacks (i.e. multiattack is itself an attack). I believe you and I once had a lengthy discussion on this point, ultimately deciding to agree to disagree.

Re: TWF
The argument against being able to use TWF is that commanding the beast to attack explicitly requires your action. You only get one action: having spent your action commanding the beast, you cannot possibly take the Attack Action (unless you are a multiclassed fighter and use action surge). Because TWF requires spending your action on the Attack Action, TWF cannot trigger on the same round that you order your pet to attack. (At level 5, when you spend your action to command the beast, you can also make an attack, but making that attack is not the same thing as taking the Attack Action.)

I'm not trying to argue (here) one way or the other on these topics. The point is that they are arguable, and that's a problem with the subclass.

[Kane0]

1. Do Pets contintue to do what they are told after a Ranger spends an entire action telling them to do it... Or is it one and done?

2. If the answer to 1 is One and done, would it substially effect anything if all the actions a Companian is commanded to do except attack, were continued until commanded to do otherwise?

3. Is this action utility as big an issue as my players and I see it?

Our group runs on the ruling that the companion keeps doing what it was last told to do unless its regular animal instincts and training contradict that, eg if they are severely wounded they will want to retreat unless told to keep attacking, or will defend their master unless told to follow another party member. That way our ranger can open combat with a bow shot and his wolf attacking (we are level 6 now) and at later rounds can keep firing away twice per round while his wolf mauls merrily away unless commanded otherwise. That said he still has to be careful since the wolf isn't as sturdy as the rest of us and isn't as strategically inclined.

It depends on the animal's intelligence and what its commanded to do. the standard suite of commands such as 'guard', 'follow', 'hunt', 'attack', etc wouldnt really be that bad but anything requiring higher order thinking might become problematic, as would overly specific orders. We approach it as directing something like a golem or undead minion rather than explaining a plan to a hireling. More than one 'if', 'but, 'except', etc seriously complicates things.

It gives you an advantage in the action economy but a lot of people agree that the beastmaster needs that boost compared to other options. That aside, it is balanced out if you play the animal companion like an animal rather than an intelligent and fanatically loyal hireling. If one keeps the restrictions in place and commands must be kept simple then it prevent the companion from getting out of hand.

[archaeo]

(Emphasis in final sentence added.) Note that my entire point is that the subclass was badly written. If you need a collection of four tweets to know how the subclass works, I think it's pretty clear there is a problem.

Like I said, we don't disagree on this. A tiny bit of added clarity would've gone a long way here, and I'll bet they consider fixing it in the future.


I'm not trying to argue (here) one way or the other on these topics. The point is that they are arguable, and that's a problem with the subclass.

Everything is really obviously and self-evidently arguable. Source: I have read many threads on this subforum.