Any official clarification about BM Animal Companions?

[Snig]

I'm about to start my game this saturday and I can't decide if I am going to play as a small Hunter Ranger riding a tamed / bought mount, or a Beast Master Ranger riding his Animal Companion.

Is it accepted that I have to use my action EVERY turn to have my pet attack? Or will it defend me, itself, or continue to attack a target after I have commanded it?

[Giant2005]

You don't have to use your turn to have the pet attack every time (You can ignore the pet and attack yourself if you like) but your pet won't defend you, itself, or continue to attack a target without you giving up an attack every time you want it to attack.

[CNagy]

So yeah. That's all sorts of ridiculous and somehow I've missed it every time I looked at Beast Master, but it says plainly "it doesn't take an action unless you command it to."

If you are around, it'll sit like a stone and wait for you to tell it to do stuff. If you are "absent" for whatever value satisfies absent, it goes back to acting like an animal.

[Once a Fool]

Although the new errata does state that it doesn't have to be commanded to use reactions (for opportunity attacks, for instance).

And it will act on it's own if the ranger is absent or incapacitated.

[Capac Amaru]

Ask your DM to houserule that your companion is an NPC under his or your control, and RP it like an actual creature.

You can use your action to give it specific commands.

[burninatortrog]

If you are around, it'll sit like a stone and wait for you to tell it to do stuff.

This isn't exactly true, it can move and take reactions.

[Kane0]

If you go small BM with a ridable companion you can ask your dm if you can use the mount rules while your riding it, which is a little more preferable to the animal companion rules.

[Snig]

If you go small BM with a ridable companion you can ask your dm if you can use the mount rules while your riding it, which is a little more preferable to the animal companion rules.

I'm considering just going hunter ranger and doing this with a regular mount such as a mastiff (wolf). I lose out on my mount being useful in combat but I gain all the benefits of the hunter sub-class. Still undecided.

[HoarsHalberd]

This isn't exactly true, it can move and take reactions.

And take bonus actions if it can. (Panther can pounce on any prone opponent near them as a bonus action by RAW)

[Easy_Lee]

And take bonus actions if it can. (Panther can pounce on any prone opponent near them as a bonus action by RAW)

Not clarified, but not disallowed either. So yes, bonus actions are possible which makes a panther one of the better companions.

[HoarsHalberd]

Not clarified, but not disallowed either. So yes, bonus actions are possible which makes a panther one of the better companions.

If any archetype needs some airbud help I think it's the BM. Seeing as it specifically states action and doesn't state bonus action you should be able to get away with it.

[Easy_Lee]

If any archetype needs some airbud help I think it's the BM. Seeing as it specifically states action and doesn't state bonus action you should be able to get away with it.

Airbud help?

[SharkForce]

Airbud help?

presumably: "the rules don't say a dog can't play [baseball/football/basketball/soccer/polevaulting/biathlon/polo/snooker/etc]"

(note: it is my sincere hope that the joke entries i listed are not actual airbud movies... but i wouldn't guarantee it).

[Chronos]

Silly kids' movie called Air Bud, featuring a dog who plays pro baseball, because there's no rule that says that a dog can't play.

[Easy_Lee]

presumably: "the rules don't say a dog can't play [baseball/football/basketball/soccer/polevaulting/biathlon/polo/snooker/etc]"

(note: it is my sincere hope that the joke entries i listed are not actual airbud movies... but i wouldn't guarantee it).

Got it. I remember the movies but never actually watched one.

[HoarsHalberd]

Got it. I remember the movies but never actually watched one.

Yeah sorry it's shorthand I picked up on here for the ridiculous position: "It doesn't say I can't do this, so I can."

[Snig]

So I wonder if my small bm was mounted on his wolf and decided not to control the mount, would it get it's own initiative and be able to attack without me using my actions?

I really want to play a bm mounted archer, but I can't help but feel that choosing hunter and buying a mount would be more powerful.

However if I did this I would absolutely needed to pick up mounted combatant ASAP, if riding my animal companion I could probably grab sharpshooter first.

Gah, I don't know.

[PhantomRenegade]

In that scenario the beast would not get its own iniciative and be able to attack on its own because it is not intelligent.

A level 9 druid would be able to cast awaken on it for 1000GP to make it intelligent but you actually need a druid to do that.

[Easy_Lee]

Yeah sorry it's shorthand I picked up on here for the ridiculous position: "It doesn't say I can't do this, so I can."

I feel like we need a word for that, some fallacy thing like the guy at the gym fallacy. Do we have a word for that? Some smart-ass is going to reply "rules lawyering."

[Person_Man]

Good Companion options:


Pteranodon: 50 ft fly speed, High AC, Flyby, potential mount.
Flying Snake: Poison, High AC, high to-hit,fly/swim speeds, Flyby, Blindsight.
Giant Crab: Grapples, High AC, Stealth, swim speed, Blindsight, potential mount.
Giant Wolf Spider: Poison, Stealth, Perception, spider abilities, Blindsight, Darkvision, climb speed, potential mount.
Panther: Pounce, Stealth, Perception, Keen Smell, climb speed, potential mount.
Wolf: Bite knocks enemy Prone, Pack Tactics, Perception, Stealth skill, potential mount.


Note that Panther is only useful if your DM allows it to take its Bonus Action, which is logical, but not explicitly stated.

Noteworthy benefits:



All of the above except the pteranodon offer an extra effect in addition to their attack.
Pteranodon grants you all day flight if you're small and ride it as a mount. Others can also grant you movement bonuses when used as mount.
At low levels, Companion's attacks can have a higher to-hit bonus then yours (if they have superior Dex/Str compared to you). Pack Tactics gives the Wolf Advantage on most attacks, which makes it very likely to hit.
Extra Opportunity Attack from Companion. Particularly useful if ally uses Command or whatever to force them.
Extra meat bag to absorb hits. (Though not as many as a mid-level spellcaster using Animate Dead or Conjure whatever).
Extra Perception check makes it highly unlikely you'll be ambushed when alone/scouting, particularly if they have Blindsight or Keen Smell.
If you're incapacitated, your Companion continues to fight/protect you, which is something Animated/Conjured creatures don't do.
Mounted Combat Feat makes the Companion much less squishy, if you ride it.

DMs fiat/houserules can improve Companion further if:



They allow them to use/attune magic items and actually give your party enough magic items that you'd consider giving one to your Companion.
Allow your Companion to wear barding/armor within Proficiency. This would improve its AC and make it much less squishy.
Ignore the errata and allow Multiattack to be used as an Attack Action, which makes the Giant Crab viable.
Add your proficiency bonus to the DC of Companion abilities (Poison, Trip, etc).
Ordering the Companion to take the Attack Action counts as the Ranger himself taking the Attack Action for purposes of allowing Two Weapon Fighting (allowing the Ranger to use his Bonus Action to make an Attack) or anything else that explicitly requires the Attack Action to use (some Feats/abilities).


Overall, I would say that its not as terrible as it seems. But it still comparatively sucks unless your DM allows some of the fiat/houserules I've outlined, in which can it can be quite useful.

[burninatortrog]

I feel like we need a word for that, some fallacy thing like the guy at the gym fallacy. Do we have a word for that? Some smart-ass is going to reply "rules lawyering."

"Appeal to ignorance." Though I have to say I'm pretty partial to "Air Bud Fallacy" after reading this thread.

[Easy_Lee]

"Appeal to ignorance."

That's pretty close. As it applies to D&D:

The book says I can do this.
The book doesn't say I can do this.
The book doesn't say I can't do this.
The book says I can't do this.

It's important to remember that making assumptions about either of the two in the middle would be fallacious.

[Susano-wo]

seems like calling it an "Airbud Argument" works pretty well :P
Of course, what makes it an Airbud fallacy is case by case; its only a fallacy if its not reasonable to infer that lack of prohibition is permission. In this case, they specified which actions are not allowed on BM animal companions, so, though it may be unintended, it is legal. Its not the same as, say, arguing that it doesn't say you can't breathe underwater, which, even if the game did not specify in some way, its not reasonable to infer that you could do that unless specified.

[Kryx]

Add your proficiency bonus to the DC of Companion abilities (Poison, Trip, etc).
Since you're looking to make it scale you need to remove the inherent proficiency bonus before doing do. Monsters have a minimum of 2. Adding your proficiency on top of that is beyond what is expected.

[SharkForce]

Since you're looking to make it scale you need to remove the inherent proficiency bonus before doing do. Monsters have a minimum of 2. Adding your proficiency on top of that is beyond what is expected.

counteracted by the attribute not scaling.

most CR 1/4 beasts have save DCs of 11 if they have one. i think one has a 12 somewhere.

at level 3, your expected DC is 13 or 14. pretty much in line with spells. at level 20, your expected DC is 17 or 18. pretty much in line with spells (and actually slightly worse in the long run). i don't see any particular concerns to be honest.

[Easy_Lee]

Just make companion DC equal the rangers. That's only fair.

[Kryx]

counteracted by the attribute not scaling

Just make companion DC equal the rangers. That's only fair.

Monsters don't have the same DC as players. They aren't meant to. Increasing the DC makes them better than intended. Scale them, sure, but not more than the monsters would have normally if scaled. They aren't meant to be the same DC as spells as spells are a limited resources and monsters are not.

[Easy_Lee]

Monsters don't have the same DC as players. They aren't meant to. Increasing the DC makes them better than intended. Scale them, sure, but not more than the monsters would have normally if scaled. They aren't meant to be the same DC as spells as spells are a limited resources and monsters are not.

It's not a monster, it's a player's companion.

[Kryx]

It's not a monster, it's a player's companion.
It uses the monster stats which are different from PC stats. Same as no PC races should have advantage on perception.

The goal should be to scale the DC. There is no need to make the DC as high as spells as the save can be caused without limit whereas spells have limits.

[Easy_Lee]

It uses the monster stats which are different from PC stats. Same as no PC races should have advantage on perception.

The goal should be to scale the DC. There is no need to make the DC as high as spells as the save can be caused without limit whereas spells have limits.

That is like saying that a Barbarian Frenzy's intimidation DC should be artificially lowered, simply because it can be repeated. No, a DC balanced for CR 1/4 is not balanced for level 20. If the DC does not scale with the player level, then the BM is overall weakened as his levels progress. When it comes down to it, the companion is the BM. It is a part of the package that is a beast master ranger, and it makes no sense for that package to be limited by the DCs of a CR 1/4 creature.

[Kryx]

I agree that it should scale. I disagree that it should match the rangers DC or scale with a front loaded +2.

It should scale at the normal proficiency rate. If you want to assume the monster increases the main stat for the dc once or maybe even twice over 20 levels then that would work. But front loading the stat bonus isn't a good option.

[SharkForce]

It uses the monster stats which are different from PC stats. Same as no PC races should have advantage on perception.

The goal should be to scale the DC. There is no need to make the DC as high as spells as the save can be caused without limit whereas spells have limits.

conveniently, the DC wouldn't scale as high as spells. and most of the effects are a lot less impressive than spells (or at least, good spells; i suppose if you want to compare to some of the real stinkers, they might be superior), which is *why* they can be at-will abilities.

[djreynolds]

I am dumb. Are all you gals and guys saying the paladin's warhorse will attack on its own? But the ranger's pet mount needs to use his attack. I hate that "panther" too sometimes, but why can't your animal companion just use its own attack to fight. The beast buddy can can reactively attack if attacked, like my cat and me with a laser pointer. That's awful. What happens when you summon a bear, wouldn't that just be better? May as well hire a henchmen.

[ChubbyRain]

I am dumb. Are all you gals and guys saying the paladin's warhorse will attack on its own? But the ranger's pet mount needs to use his attack. I hate that "panther" too sometimes, but why can't your animal companion just use its own attack to fight. The beast buddy can can reactively attack if attacked, like my cat and me with a laser pointer. That's awful. What happens when you summon a bear, wouldn't that just be better? May as well hire a henchmen.

Unless you are the ones that made those rules then you aren't the dumb one.

Part of the reason they took away the free thinking of animal companions is because in 3e the druid got one that overshadowed the Fighter most of the game. However they screwed up in 5e.

Perhaps they should have taken a page out of the essentials druid companion.

[djreynolds]

Can't they just add like a trained pet feat or class feature? Rangers used to be what you took cause you didn't roll a 17 in charisma for a paladin but rolled better than a 9 in strength. They were bad asses. They should just make fighters with the ranger or paladin or weaponmaster or battlemaster or barbarian or eldritch knight as the archetypes. Paladins are now lethal. Battle master are lethal. Hunter isn't terrible. BMs are "BMs" may as well play a nature cleric.

[Easy_Lee]

BMs are "BMs" may as well play a nature cleric.

Kind of feel like you don't much care for the archetype. I suspect WotC is the same way.

[ChubbyRain]

Kind of feel like you don't much care for the archetype. I suspect WotC is the same way.

Well they did in 4e, not sure what changed.

Hell evn in essentials the Hunter Ranger was sweeeet.

[djreynolds]

I grew up reading about a particular elf and his wild cat. It was awesome. That's what I think off. You know the blind Archer and his hawk. I don't think having a rhinoceros is fair, but losing your attack is a lot. That's seems steep. I know the animal could help, like drag a friend away. If you didn't lose your attack, would that be fair.

[CNagy]

I grew up reading about a particular elf and his wild cat. It was awesome. That's what I think off. You know the blind Archer and his hawk. I don't think having a rhinoceros is fair, but losing your attack is a lot. That's seems steep. I know the animal could help, like drag a friend away. If you didn't lose your attack, would that be fair.

That elf was a Hunter and his cat was an astral being summoned by a magic figurine. That blind archer's hawk used the Help action to guide his arrows.

[djreynolds]

But that elf is really cool. And his definitely a hunter. As soon as our DM kills me off. I'm gonna try the beast master and maybe even a strength build with that.

[Osrogue]

Beast master companions are essentially Pokemon that know helping hand, double team, an attacking move, and agility (to double move speed).

They make perfect sense that way.

[Easy_Lee]

Beast master companions are essentially Pokemon that know helping hand, double team, an attacking move, and agility (to double move speed).

They make perfect sense that way.

So now D&D is Pokémon? The whole point of Pokémon is that they do things the trainer can't, and can be healed by spending a minute at a center. BMs get one companion who usually can't do many, if any, things that the ranger can't do better himself, the ranger must sacrifice his own actions to use it, and if it dies then the ranger has to spend eight hours getting a new one. No other archetype feature can be lost so easily, and the beast is the BM's entire archetype.

[-Jynx-]

Beast master companions are essentially Pokemon that know helping hand, double team, an attacking move, and agility (to double move speed).

They make perfect sense that way.

What about a splash attack!? I NEED SPLASH ATTACK.