Beast Master Ranger (Bestial Fury Update)

[ThermalSlapShot]

Here is something I thought the playground would like to see.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/610961999082745856

Multiattack can't be used until Bestial Fury. My house rule will say otherwise though :smallbiggrin:.

[Easy_Lee]

Figured as much. That's some bull shizzle.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Figured as much. That's some bull shizzle.

Apparently they are looking into possibly overhauling the Ranger... Not sure how likely it is but my pal is super excited for that prospect.

[Gwendol]

They've said as much for some time. Hope they can get something coherent together eventually, because right now the rules are clunky and invites for extensive homebrew.
The beast behaves like an automaton and not a beast.

[ImSAMazing]

Apparently they are looking into possibly overhauling the Ranger... Not sure how likely it is but my pal is super excited for that prospect.

I think they are. They must...

[Person_Man]

Hopefully when they release 5.5 (which I'm guessing will occur around 2017) they also fix the Ranger's spellcasting (allowing them to change their spell selection) and weak-ish mid-high level class abilities, and not just the Beastmaster subclass.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Hopefully when they release 5.5 (which I'm guessing will occur around 2017) they also fix the Ranger's spellcasting (allowing them to change their spell selection) and weak-ish mid-high level class abilities, and not just the Beastmaster subclass.

I actually hope they call it 5.5 and not some silly word like "essentials", " unchained", or whatever else.

But yeah, if they are doing a major rehaul then I guessing that the entire Ranger will get fixed and not just one aspect.

[Gwendol]

I hope they address this and also tweak the ranger class abilities. Hunters mark and similar should be abilities and not spells.

[ThermalSlapShot]

I hope they address this and also tweak the ranger class abilities. Hunters mark and similar should be abilities and not spells.

I would like to see Hunter Quarry (sp?) make a comeback.

More general on favored terrain and favored enemy, allow for some way to change the features.

[some guy]

A big disconnect I have with the beastmaster is when it's compared with a moon druid. A moon druid can change into a cr 1 creature with multi-attack at lvl 2, but a ranger won't even have multi-attack at lvl 3, never mind the cr1. What's that all about?

[Gwendol]

A big disconnect I have with the beastmaster is when it's compared with a moon druid. A moon druid can change into a cr 1 creature with multi-attack at lvl 2, but a ranger won't even have multi-attack at lvl 3, never mind the cr1. What's that all about?

Exactly this. The "flavor" of the beast is lost under the current rules.

[ThermalSlapShot]

A big disconnect I have with the beastmaster is when it's compared with a moon druid. A moon druid can change into a cr 1 creature with multi-attack at lvl 2, but a ranger won't even have multi-attack at lvl 3, never mind the cr1. What's that all about?

WotC has this long standing issue of of over valuing "at-will" and devaluing "per specific time".

It happened in 3e with BAB and Spells, it happened in 4e but not as much since everyone had the same expenditure mechanic, and it has happened in 5e.

Everyone needs to get on the same expenditure mechanics and I think a lot of these problems will vanish.

[LordVonDerp]

WotC has this long standing issue of of over valuing "at-will" and devaluing "per specific time".

It happened in 3e with BAB and Spells, it happened in 4e but not as much since everyone had the same expenditure mechanic, and it has happened in 5e.

Everyone needs to get on the same expenditure mechanics and I think a lot of these problems will vanish.
Yeah, just get everyone having a combination of at-will and short rest abilities and everything becomes much easier to design.

[Easy_Lee]

I would be happy to see a ranger overhaul. The class features are fine in theory but too limited in practice. For example, both rangers and land druids get an ability called Land's Stride, but the druid version is unequivocally better. I can think of at least two reasons why that's bad game design. So I hope we see an update sooner than later.

[Madfellow]

According to WotC, the ranger fix is likely to be in the form of a new archetype. It'll probably be showcased in an Unearthed Arcana sometime down the line.

[Gwendol]

That's not really what I was hoping for. The ranger chassi could need an overhaul, and a new archetype will not address that.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Yeah, just get everyone having a combination of at-will and short rest abilities and everything becomes much easier to design.

Exactly.

Plus it will allow magic to simulate movie/book magic better than the vancian system does.

[SharkForce]

Exactly.

Plus it will allow magic to simulate movie/book magic better than the vancian system does.

they did that. it was called 4th edition.

it went so well that about 90% of their marketing for 5th edition was "we're really sorry about 4th edition, and we promise 5th edition is completely different".

[LordVonDerp]

they did that. it was called 4th edition.

it went so well that about 90% of their marketing for 5th edition was "we're really sorry about 4th edition, and we promise 5th edition is completely different".
Go read the post he was quoting, the suggestion has nothing to do with 4e.

[ThermalSlapShot]

they did that. it was called 4th edition.

it went so well that about 90% of their marketing for 5th edition was "we're really sorry about 4th edition, and we promise 5th edition is completely different".

Have you ever played/read 4e? 4e did not do what was proposed.

Please don't get your underwear in a bunch because you assume something that isn't true.

[SharkForce]

Have you ever played/read 4e? 4e did not do what was proposed.

Please don't get your underwear in a bunch because you assume something that isn't true.

why, because there was also a tiny amount of daily abilities in addition to everyone having at-will and short-rest powers?

the system described is pretty much 4e's resource system. there were other reasons a lot of the old guard didn't like 4e too, certainly. but putting everyone on the same resource system is basically one of the things that WotC has noted makes the game not feel like D&D. and, as i said, they've put a lot of effort into making 5th edition feel like old D&D.

you could certainly make a good game out of giving everyone the same resource system. heck, i'll go so far as to say that 4th edition was generally a good game that did just that.

but then everyone goes right back to complaining that it isn't D&D, and there goes a big chunk of the market that WotC just put a significant amount of effort into regaining.

[LordVonDerp]

why, because there was also a tiny amount of daily abilities in addition to everyone having at-will and short-rest powers?

the system described is pretty much 4e's resource system. there were other reasons a lot of the old guard didn't like 4e too, certainly. but putting everyone on the same resource system is basically one of the things that WotC has noted makes the game not feel like D&D. and, as i said, they've put a lot of effort into making 5th edition feel like old D&D.

you could certainly make a good game out of giving everyone the same resource system. heck, i'll go so far as to say that 4th edition was generally a good game that did just that.

but then everyone goes right back to complaining that it isn't D&D, and there goes a big chunk of the market that WotC just put a significant amount of effort into regaining.

Not even close, man.
The proposed solution was to use the parts of 5e that work well to fix the parts that don't.

[ThermalSlapShot]

why, because there was also a tiny amount of daily abilities in addition to everyone having at-will and short-rest powers?

the system described is pretty much 4e's resource system. there were other reasons a lot of the old guard didn't like 4e too, certainly. but putting everyone on the same resource system is basically one of the things that WotC has noted makes the game not feel like D&D. and, as i said, they've put a lot of effort into making 5th edition feel like old D&D.

you could certainly make a good game out of giving everyone the same resource system. heck, i'll go so far as to say that 4th edition was generally a good game that did just that.

but then everyone goes right back to complaining that it isn't D&D, and there goes a big chunk of the market that WotC just put a significant amount of effort into regaining.

You aren't getting it.

4e did a lot of things that isn't being described.

4 had at-will, Encounter, daily, and utilities.

What is being proposed is making everything work off from at-will and short rest. This would be like if 4e had everything based off at-will and encounter abilities butnisnt the case.

Look at the current Warlock and tell me that people are saying that it isn't D&D. The current Warlock is one of the popular classes in 5e and work off the at-will/short rest mechanic that is being proposed.

[Tenmujiin]

You aren't getting it.

4e did a lot of things that isn't being described.

4 had at-will, Encounter, daily, and utilities.

What is being proposed is making everything work off from at-will and short rest. This would be like if 4e had everything based off at-will and encounter abilities butnisnt the case.

Look at the current Warlock and tell me that people are saying that it isn't D&D. The current Warlock is one of the popular classes in 5e and work off the at-will/short rest mechanic that is being proposed.

What makes the game "not feel like D&D" is every class using the same resources/expenditure mechanics, which is exactly what you are proposing. Having some classes mostly at-will, some a mix of at-will and short rest and some using long rest mechanics as well as the resources used (uses of an ability, spell slots, KI/power/spell points) is for sure harder to balance but also is part of what makes the game feel like D&D. For example: I love the 3.5 warlock but I would hate a game that has every class work like that, part of what makes the mechanics of D&D classes awesome is the fact they are different to other classes.

[Dimcair]

I'd even settle for a ranged Monk subclass^^

[ThermalSlapShot]

What makes the game "not feel like D&D" is every class using the same resources/expenditure mechanics, which is exactly what you are proposing. Having some classes mostly at-will, some a mix of at-will and short rest and some using long rest mechanics as well as the resources used (uses of an ability, spell slots, KI/power/spell points) is for sure harder to balance but also is part of what makes the game feel like D&D. For example: I love the 3.5 warlock but I would hate a game that has every class work like that, part of what makes the mechanics of D&D classes awesome is the fact they are different to other classes.


So the 5e Warlock and the Champion Fighter is the same?

They both run off at-will, per short rest, and some long rest abilities.

[Easy_Lee]

So the 5e Warlock and the Champion Fighter is the same?

They both run off at-will, per short rest, and some long rest abilities.

All classes and archetypes run off of short rest, long rest, passive, and at-will abilities. The difference is the abilities themselves and the relative number of each.

[ThermalSlapShot]

All classes and archetypes run off of short rest, long rest, passive, and at-will abilities. The difference is the abilities themselves and the relative number of each.

Exactly.

Just because everyone runs off at-will/short rest won't matter as long as you make classes different.

No one said to make everyone so modular in class design, just have everything run off the at-will/short rest mechanic.

[Easy_Lee]

Exactly.

Just because everyone runs off at-will/short rest won't matter as long as you make classes different.

No one said to make everyone so modular in class design, just have everything run off the at-will/short rest mechanic.

My only contention here is that spell slots of levels 6-9 should not be short rest abilities. That said, I question whether players should be able to cast spells of those tiers at all.

[ThermalSlapShot]

My only contention here is that spell slots of levels 6-9 should not be short rest abilities. That said, I question whether players should be able to cast spells of those tiers at all.

With how the other classes and how the world operates... I would say to make those spells rituals or only found in magic items that cast them 1/day or something.

Or just get rid of them. A lot of them are either super powerful or redundant.

[Once a Fool]

I actually hope they call it 5.5 and not some silly word like "essentials", " unchained", or whatever else

Essentials was certainly not a 4.5 E. Aside from obsoleting a few feat-tax feats with better feat-tax feats, Essentials (and post-Essentials 4e) was 100% compatible side-by-side with pre-Essentials 4e.

Unlike the shift from 3e to 3.5, Essentials did not change the underlying system in any way; it only offered a different approach through additional fully compatible options.

[LordVonDerp]

I'd even settle for a ranged Monk subclass^^

Gun monks.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Essentials was certainly not a 4.5 E. Aside from obsoleting a few feat-tax feats with better feat-tax feats, Essentials (and post-Essentials 4e) was 100% compatible side-by-side with pre-Essentials 4e.

Unlike the shift from 3e to 3.5, Essentials did not change the underlying system in any way; it only offered a different approach through additional fully compatible options.


3e and 3.5 are just as comparable with each other as 4e and Essentials.

Essentials was definitely a 4.5.

Actually essentials changed more than what 3.5 did, look at how the basic class design changed in the two. 3e and 3.5e classes at least look similar, essentials changed a lot more than you think it did.

3.5 even had a rule somewhere, if something in 3e didn't get a direct update then it was OK to run in a 3.5 game, at the DM discretion of course.

Which is why Savage Species works in 3.5.


Edit Below

Gun Monk? I like...

[Vogonjeltz]

Multiattack can't be used until Bestial Fury.

Not at all surprising, it's two attacks.


A big disconnect I have with the beastmaster is when it's compared with a moon druid. A moon druid can change into a cr 1 creature with multi-attack at lvl 2, but a ranger won't even have multi-attack at lvl 3, never mind the cr1. What's that all about?

The Moon Druid has to put themselves personally at risk of dying, the Ranger doesn't. A Druid using multi-attack at level 2 is essentially using two-weapon fighting which the Ranger is more than capable of doing, it's not like the Druid is getting 'more' attacks.


I would be happy to see a ranger overhaul. The class features are fine in theory but too limited in practice. For example, both rangers and land druids get an ability called Land's Stride, but the druid version is unequivocally better. I can think of at least two reasons why that's bad game design. So I hope we see an update sooner than later.

Hold on now, the abilities are identical, it's only the level they're gained at, and all Druid's don't get Land's Stride, specifically Circle of the Land Druids do , Moon Druid's don't get squat. This means it's really a Ranger ability that a Land Druid can get early in lieu of another class feature.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Hold on now, the abilities are identical, it's only the level they're gained at, and all Druid's don't get Land's Stride, specifically Circle of the Land Druids do , Moon Druid's don't get squat. This means it's really a Ranger ability that a Land Druid can get early in lieu of another class feature.

which rubs salt in the wounds even more. Just like how the Ranger, at level 2, can/will/whatever gain the battle master feature a level before the actual battle master.

[SharkForce]

With how the other classes and how the world operates... I would say to make those spells rituals or only found in magic items that cast them 1/day or something.

Or just get rid of them. A lot of them are either super powerful or redundant.

and this is sounding more and more like the exact reason i don't play and never cared enough to discuss 4th edition.

you're trying to "fix" the game by making it so that nobody can do awesome things. this is a giant steaming pile of turds of a solution.

fix the game by making it so that non-casters can do awesome things and bring them up to the point where they are also capable of world-altering feats. let barbarians hold the world on their shoulders while atlas rests his shoulders. let fighters swing their sword so precisely and swiftly that a blade-shaped shockwave of air cuts apart their enemies in a line, or so tough that they shrug off even the most powerful of spells. let their attacks be so precise that even gigantic tough creatures and demons can be slain in one or two attacks. let rogues steal people's ideas right out of their head, or hide behind a broomstick.

D&D isn't D&D when the spellcasters can't do awesome things. raistlin/fistandantilus are not known for their ability to cast hold person on 3 targets, they're known for being able to use world-altering magic that challenges the might of the gods themselves. the red wizards of thay are not feared for their ability to banish a single person for 10 rounds, they're feared because they can shove your soul into a gem and sell it to a powerful demon and doom you to an eternity of torture.

these are the kinds of things which, as noted, you can't just hand out on a short rest and not create problems.

[ThermalSlapShot]

and this is sounding more and more like the exact reason i don't play and never cared enough to discuss 4th edition.

you're trying to "fix" the game by making it so that nobody can do awesome things. this is a giant steaming pile of turds of a solution.

fix the game by making it so that non-casters can do awesome things and bring them up to the point where they are also capable of world-altering feats. let barbarians hold the world on their shoulders while atlas rests his shoulders. let fighters swing their sword so precisely and swiftly that a blade-shaped shockwave of air cuts apart their enemies in a line, or so tough that they shrug off even the most powerful of spells. let their attacks be so precise that even gigantic tough creatures and demons can be slain in one or two attacks. let rogues steal people's ideas right out of their head, or hide behind a broomstick.

D&D isn't D&D when the spellcasters can't do awesome things. raistlin/fistandantilus are not known for their ability to cast hold person on 3 targets, they're known for being able to use world-altering magic that challenges the might of the gods themselves. the red wizards of thay are not feared for their ability to banish a single person for 10 rounds, they're feared because they can shove your soul into a gem and sell it to a powerful demon and doom you to an eternity of torture.

these are the kinds of things which, as noted, you can't just hand out on a short rest and not create problems.

I'm not trying to fix anything, but "one of these things isn't like the other" comes to mind.

Instead of bringing everyone dwn in level you could easily bring everyone up in level. Especially since the PCs apparently live in a bubble outside their world.

The issue is that the world is running Final Fantasy 1 and some PC classes are playing Final Fantasy 15 (or whatever the hell itnis called).

My issue is that it doesn't fit.

Either lets all play Final Fantasy 1 or lets all Play Final Fantasy 15, pick one and be consistent.

You could make Meteor Swarm/True Polymorph usable 1/short rest if you want at level 17+. It breaks the game/world we currently have but it wouldn't break the game/world if that was the base assumption while building said world.

Actually Meteor Swarm and True Polymorph 1/day breaks the game as is.

[Easy_Lee]

D&D isn't D&D when the spellcasters can't do awesome things. raistlin/fistandantilus are not known for their ability to cast hold person on 3 targets, they're known for being able to use world-altering magic that challenges the might of the gods themselves. the red wizards of thay are not feared for their ability to banish a single person for 10 rounds, they're feared because they can shove your soul into a gem and sell it to a powerful demon and doom you to an eternity of torture.

This is why d&d will never be fully balanced between mundanes and casters. Take away world shattering powers for casters, and people like you complain that it doesn't feel like d&d. Give world shattering powers to mundanes, and people complain that it's not realistic (which is f-ing hilarious considering some of the rules these people are okay with). And if either group has world shattering powers, most DMs don't know wtf to do. High level play becomes an arms race.

One thing I will say: keeping everything at an overall low power level is much more manageable. Otherwise we run into the DBZ problem, not understanding why the big bad doesn't just blow up Earth already.

[Once a Fool]

3e and 3.5 are just as comparable with each other as 4e and Essentials.

Essentials was definitely a 4.5.

Actually essentials changed more than what 3.5 did, look at how the basic class design changed in the two. 3e and 3.5e classes at least look similar, essentials changed a lot more than you think it did.

3.5 even had a rule somewhere, if something in 3e didn't get a direct update then it was OK to run in a 3.5 game, at the DM discretion of course.

3.5's changes were often superficially minor, but system-wide. Weapon-sizes, for instance, was an across-the-board change. Also, 3.5 straight-up replaced classes, spells, and game-rules with new versions that were not backwards-comparable. 3.5 was as different from 3e as 2e was from 1e.

In contrast, virtually all* of the changes in Essentials (and these started with the PHB 3, incidentally) were limited to options that did not replace older options. A Slayer or Knight could stand side-by-side with a PHB Fighter and do similar things in different ways (keeping in mind that the Slayer was a striker, not a defender) without taking anything away from either of the other options. Different options with different, but completely compatable, approaches.

Unlike 3.5, Essentials did not take anything away from its predecessor; it only added options to it.

*The only real systematic change that came out of Essentials was the randomization of magic item treasures--and that stayed consistent with the requirements of the system's math.

[SharkForce]

they only break the game in the sense that certain classes have nothing of similar power to offer.

if everyone is awesome, then you don't have a problem. i've never once been in a 2nd edition group that didn't value fighters, rangers, and similar classes (not so much paladins, but that had more to do with RP than power). and yet, casters get far more powerful than 5e casters.

why is it not a problem? because a 2e fighter can quickly reach the point where their damage and toughness make them a legitimate threat, whether at low levels or high levels. because hasting your fighters is actually a massive boost in what your party can handle, rather than being what you do only when the enemy is extremely resistant to all your magic. because buffing them isn't just a thing you do to keep them feeling like they're contributing, and is actually something you do because that is the most effective way that you can contribute.

[Easy_Lee]

if everyone is awesome, then you don't have a problem. i've never once been in a 2nd edition group that didn't value fighters, rangers, and similar classes (not so much paladins, but that had more to do with RP than power). and yet, casters get far more powerful than 5e casters.

why is it not a problem? because a 2e fighter can quickly reach the point where their damage and toughness make them a legitimate threat, whether at low levels or high levels. because hasting your fighters is actually a massive boost in what your party can handle, rather than being what you do only when the enemy is extremely resistant to all your magic. because buffing them isn't just a thing you do to keep them feeling like they're contributing, and is actually something you do because that is the most effective way that you can contribute.

Which would you rather have, a system where casters can do big things but spend most of their time doing nothing, or a system where casters are no stronger than mundanes but handle different roles? WotC prefers the latter, and that's how the game is until 6th level spells roll around. But notably, even by that point fighters still do more damage, and hasting the fighter or barbarian is still a good use of concentration. Casters are just capable of winning encounters X times per day by that level, whereas mundanes aren't, leading to imbalance.

[some guy]

The Moon Druid has to put themselves personally at risk of dying, the Ranger doesn't. A Druid using multi-attack at level 2 is essentially using two-weapon fighting which the Ranger is more than capable of doing, it's not like the Druid is getting 'more' attacks.

Sure, the damage is comparable (dual-wielding ranger with Hunter's Mark for 4d6+6=20, brown bear druid with a claw and bite for 1d8+2d6+8=19,5), but that's costing the ranger's daily spells, while the druid's only spending resources that return with a short rest. As for the druid putting themselves at risk, at level 2 & 3 they have incredible high hitpoints while wildshaped and can heal themselves with bonus actions. That would all be fine, but the druid has also full spellcasting. I'm just disappointed, that while the druid is slightly nerfed from 3.5, it's now a powerhouse at the low levels. But that's maybe something for a different thread.

[SharkForce]

Which would you rather have, a system where casters can do big things but spend most of their time doing nothing, or a system where casters are no stronger than mundanes but handle different roles? WotC prefers the latter, and that's how the game is until 6th level spells roll around. But notably, even by that point fighters still do more damage, and hasting the fighter or barbarian is still a good use of concentration. Casters are just capable of winning encounters X times per day by that level, whereas mundanes aren't, leading to imbalance.

hasting the fighter or barbarian is almost never the best option. you can give one extra attack to one person, or you can take away an entire action from multiple enemies. the big change in favour of casters at higher levels is partly from high level spells, but it is also in large part due to the proficiency bonus being larger at high levels, and thus making a larger difference at those levels when you target non-proficient saving throws while you get proficiency on your save DC.

at level 1, entangle and sleep *are* "big things". heck, at level 5, entangle is still a "big thing" (sleep isn't, but wizards and sorcerers get web, hypnotic pattern, etc by then). casters get to do "big things" starting from level 1, clear through to level 20, some of the time, while doing less impressive things most turns.

[Easy_Lee]

hasting the fighter or barbarian is almost never the best option. you can give one extra attack to one person, or you can take away an entire action from multiple enemies. the big change in favour of casters at higher levels is partly from high level spells, but it is also in large part due to the proficiency bonus being larger at high levels, and thus making a larger difference at those levels when you target non-proficient saving throws while you get proficiency on your save DC.

at level 1, entangle and sleep *are* "big things". heck, at level 5, entangle is still a "big thing" (sleep isn't, but wizards and sorcerers get web, hypnotic pattern, etc by then). casters get to do "big things" starting from level 1, clear through to level 20, some of the time, while doing less impressive things most turns.

Haste does more than that and has no saving throw associated with it. It's always a viable option, particularly for the low required slot level.

Sleep and entangle, on the other hand, can hit your teammates if you aren't careful, and can be resisted even if you are. Those spells are more like rolling a d20, whereas haste is a guaranteed 10.

[SharkForce]

if guaranteed low impact was good, magic missile would be the best spell in the game, and cantrips would be among the best actions a caster could take always.

yes, you can get really unlucky with your control. yes, you can be incompetent in how you place it down and hit your allies. that's why you use them intelligently and in situations where the impact is big enough.

you don't cast entangle on one enemy. you cast it on 10 enemies, and even if half of them make it, you still had a massive impact. if none of them fail it, well, the dice gods hate you today, but if you live in constant fear of that you've got bigger problems than your CC not working 100% of the time on 100% of your enemies.

guarantees are overrated when you have a very high chance of a very high impact action vs a guaranteed low impact action. haste is basically only really good if you're fighting a rakshasa. it can be good in situations where you have one really hard to hit front-liner with massive AC (and preferably enemies have disadvantage to hit also) that you can buff to be even more unhittable in a hallway that no enemies can get past. neither of these are likely to be every day things.

but i feel like this should probably be taken to another thread. if you want to continue, we should probably start a new one; hypnotic pattern vs haste has very little to do with beastmaster rangers.

[Person_Man]

This is why d&d will never be fully balanced between mundanes and casters. Take away world shattering powers for casters, and people like you complain that it doesn't feel like d&d. Give world shattering powers to mundanes, and people complain that it's not realistic (which is f-ing hilarious considering some of the rules these people are okay with).

Although I mostly agree with your general sentiment, I think that it can be done.

For example, consider the following design guidelines:
1) Reality altering craziness doesn't kick in until 6th level spells. Level 1-5 spells are still magical and awesome, but crazy spells like Animate Dead and Polymorph don't kick in until later.
2) Spellcasters have to memorize specific spells, so that they don't always have the previse reality altering magic they need available. (This was a huge part of the metagame of 1E/2E that kept casters in check, but was lost in 3E).
3) To compensate for #1 and #2, casters get more cantrips and Rituals or class abilities or whatever.
4) Non-casters get more cool open ended but not reality altering abilities, such as Cunning Action, Action Surge, more powerful Companions, etc.
5) Half-casters (and arguably the Monk) can get high level reality altering awesomeness, because they do indeed have access to magic. It just has to be built into their class abilities and be thematically appropriate. For example, I think the Paladin (and not the Cleric) should have gotten Divine Intervention.



And if either group has world shattering powers, most DMs don't know wtf to do. High level play becomes an arms race.

Again, I generally agree, but I think the existence and popularity of 3.X/PF refutes this somewhat for some DMs. The difference is that when the game enters the high magic phase, it becomes much more about narrative accomplishments and lateral thinking, as opposed to classic dungeon exploration and low-fantasy combat. For example, you might have access to an army of undead, but so does Bob the Evil Lich. Bob the Lich decides to send 1,000 undead skeletons at the Town of Innocentville, and they are 1 day away at their current marching speed. How does your party react? Can you find the Lich and take it down before the skeletons get there? Can you rally Innocentville to defend against them? Can you Polymorph the Fighter into a Dragon and have him plow through them? And so on. Yes, it is much harder to DM. But its a style of gameplay that some players and DMs enjoy.

[Easy_Lee]

Although I mostly agree with your general sentiment, I think that it can be done.

For example, consider the following design guidelines:
1) Reality altering craziness doesn't kick in until 6th level spells. Level 1-5 spells are still magical and awesome, but crazy spells like Animate Dead and Polymorph don't kick in until later.
2) Spellcasters have to memorize specific spells, so that they don't always have the previse reality altering magic they need available. (This was a huge part of the metagame of 1E/2E that kept casters in check, but was lost in 3E).
3) To compensate for #1 and #2, casters get more cantrips and Rituals or class abilities or whatever.
4) Non-casters get more cool open ended but not reality altering abilities, such as Cunning Action, Action Surge, more powerful Companions, etc.
5) Half-casters (and arguably the Monk) can get high level reality altering awesomeness, because they do indeed have access to magic. It just has to be built into their class abilities and be thematically appropriate. For example, I think the Paladin (and not the Cleric) should have gotten Divine Intervention.

Again, I generally agree, but I think the existence and popularity of 3.X/PF refutes this somewhat for some DMs. The difference is that when the game enters the high magic phase, it becomes much more about narrative accomplishments and lateral thinking, as opposed to classic dungeon exploration and low-fantasy combat. For example, you might have access to an army of undead, but so does Bob the Evil Lich. Bob the Lich decides to send 1,000 undead skeletons at the Town of Innocentville, and they are 1 day away at their current marching speed. How does your party react? Can you find the Lich and take it down before the skeletons get there? Can you rally Innocentville to defend against them? Can you Polymorph the Fighter into a Dragon and have him plow through them? And so on. Yes, it is much harder to DM. But its a style of gameplay that some players and DMs enjoy.

That's fair. I haven't seen it done, but I'm sure there are ways to do it. Are there ways to do it without someone complaining? Likely not. When Book of Nine Euphemisms came out, an attempt at putting martials on the caster power level, people complained that it made fighters like Anime characters, with over-the-top strength and speed. So they re-dubbed it Book of Weeaboo Fightan Magic. Some people wanted their fighters to be mundane, but also wanted casters to not be much more powerful than that. Overall, 5e seems to be designed with that latter group in mind.

This edition seems fine for levels 1-12. When the 13th level happens and the 6th spells come online, they're pretty much the thing that grants world-breaking power. Few other features or abilities come close to that, with onion druids being the most notable example of a non- high level spell becoming too powerful. So I can certainly support the idea that 6th level spells and beyond don't really fit within the general design of this edition.

Said another way, in the face of 6th+ level spells, martials need some new abilities to be on the same level. Else, martials are good for sustained damage but not much else at later levels.

[Gurka]

Said another way, in the face of 6th+ level spells, martials need some new abilities to be on the same level. Else, martials are good for sustained damage but not much else at later levels.

I don't expect they'll ever get it quite there, simply because a wizard can have several world altering spells at any given time, and with appropriate knowledge of what's to come, prepare the precise spells to suit, almost no matter what that situation is.

Given the small handful of static abilities gained at very high level that any mundane character has, they would need to be of supernatural (and thus out of bounds) power to compare to what those high level casters can throw around.

If it can't be mundanes getting stronger, that leaves casters getting weaker, which is equally out of bounds for many people, which brings us right back to Easy_Lee's earlier point.

Can't please everybody all of the time... I think they did an alright job this time around, and as the gulf appears and widens at higher level, it's not insurmountable with some creative use of magic items (which I know are not assumed) and in-game, non-progression-based power ups. These have always been a staple in games with my group, often to reward non-linear thinking, trifling with powers beyond your control, and generally being too big for your britches. That or death.

[SharkForce]

2nd edition seems to have managed to make fighters relevant late-game without overtly supernatural abilities. just because WotC has not made choices that lead to it, that doesn't mean there isn't a way to do it.

[LordVonDerp]

2nd edition seems to have managed to make fighters relevant late-game without overtly supernatural abilities. just because WotC has not made choices that lead to it, that doesn't mean there isn't a way to do it.

Did such results require arbitrary and annoying restrictions on spellcasters?

[SharkForce]

Did such results require arbitrary and annoying restrictions on spellcasters?

depends what you mean. there were limitations, certainly. a lot of it came from the fact that fighters at very high levels just dealt a ridiculous amount of damage, could pretty much reliably hit anything, were much more readily able to get amazing AC, and had an extremely good chance to make just about any saving throw. also, not everyone took the same amount of experience to gain levels, so some classes progressed to the later levels more rapidly. fighters were also more able to benefit from higher attributes, which could be gained from items or from spells.

some of it also came from monsters having magic resistance, monster saves improving similar to fighters, and in some cases outright immunities possessed by monsters. some of it came from the limitations of vancian casting which have been substantially reduced since then (3rd edition by adding a lot more spells per day, which 5th has reverted for the most part, 5th by giving spontaneous casting to everyone as well as having more powerful cantrips so that your low-level spells aren't also your basic attacks. 4th obviously didn't have vancian spellcasting at all).

generally speaking though, it wasn't because of restrictions on the spellcasters specifically. they couldn't wear armour at all, whether proficient or not (well, not wizards anyways... priests could). they had a d4 hit die. they were no good with weapons. the only one of those that is not equally a disadvantage that 5th edition wizards have is the d4 hit die.

[Easy_Lee]

depends what you mean. there were limitations, certainly. a lot of it came from the fact that fighters at very high levels just dealt a ridiculous amount of damage, could pretty much reliably hit anything, were much more readily able to get amazing AC, and had an extremely good chance to make just about any saving throw. also, not everyone took the same amount of experience to gain levels, so some classes progressed to the later levels more rapidly. fighters were also more able to benefit from higher attributes, which could be gained from items or from spells.

some of it also came from monsters having magic resistance, monster saves improving similar to fighters, and in some cases outright immunities possessed by monsters. some of it came from the limitations of vancian casting which have been substantially reduced since then (3rd edition by adding a lot more spells per day, which 5th has reverted for the most part, 5th by giving spontaneous casting to everyone as well as having more powerful cantrips so that your low-level spells aren't also your basic attacks. 4th obviously didn't have vancian spellcasting at all).

generally speaking though, it wasn't because of restrictions on the spellcasters specifically. they couldn't wear armour at all, whether proficient or not (well, not wizards anyways... priests could). they had a d4 hit die. they were no good with weapons. the only one of those that is not equally a disadvantage that 5th edition wizards have is the d4 hit die.

EverQuest was balanced basically the exact same way. Martials were weaker than casters, and could not solo even close to as well. But casters had to wait a long time for their resources (mana) to recover, while they literally sat around. Casters could do bigger things than the melees could, but only every so often. And casters were very quick to die if anything did get in their face. So each group needed the other.

WotC and Blizzard both decided that playstyle was boring. Blizzard brought the melees up and the casters down in power level for World of Warcraft, but gave the casters a fast-recovering mana. So everyone was overall balanced. WotC, on the other hand, released 3e and 3.5e, which took away most of the limitations on spellcasting but kept all of the power because of tradition. And we saw how that turned out.

Now, casters have very limited casting but free cantrip use, and their spells are of a lower power level so they're comparable to class features...until 6+ level spells. It's incomplete.

[Anlashok]

I'm always confused by the ranger's animal companion in 5e.

4e's beast master was considered almost unanimously a complete and utter failure and 5e's beast master functions almost identically from a mechanical perspective.

S'weird.

[Gurka]

I'm always confused by the ranger's animal companion in 5e.

4e's beast master was considered almost unanimously a complete and utter failure and 5e's beast master functions almost identically from a mechanical perspective.

S'weird.

I could be wrong, but I think where the trouble comes in, is that they were overly concerned with breaking the action economy when they designed the classes. It's a good thing to be wary of to be sure, since having a character that has powerful minions at it's disposal can very quickly trivialize most encounters. However, in my experience it's not a single persistent companion that causes that breakdown. Rather, the trouble comes in with casters that summon large numbers of minions.

The latter has been addressed reasonably well, I suppose, and seems to be much less of an issue than in some earlier editions. They just over did it on BM.

In my mind, BM would be fine if Ranger used it's bonus action to issue a command to the beast (such as "Kill!") which the beast would then carry out to the best of it's ability. I see no other particular penalty that need be paid to control it.

Break up the attack progression to work out something along the lines of: 2nd attack for ranger at 5th level, 2nd attack for beast at 12th level.

It simplifies everything, and what you're left with is a character that represents a base of 4 attacks (no more than the Fighter), but for whom each of those 4 attacks are weaker (the ranger lacks many damage steroids, and the beasts attacks are superior to other beasts but still inferior to PC attacks).

I haven't had the opportunity to see it play out in game as above, but we've talked about it and the next time we start fresh my group is going to try it. I don't see anything that jumps out at me as overtly too-strong with that setup.

[ThermalSlapShot]

I'm always confused by the ranger's animal companion in 5e.

4e's beast master was considered almost unanimously a complete and utter failure and 5e's beast master functions almost identically from a mechanical perspective.

S'weird.


The Essentials Druid was close to the same thing but had auras. I recall the Druid being better.

[Dralnu]

People were talking earlier in this thread about the possibility that WOTC overhauls PHB stuff.

I asked Mike Mearls about it and he seems to confirm that we'll be getting UA's that do just that:
https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/610959975456899072

So that's good news.. I hope. They might fix what ain't broke, but they also might address some real issues.

[LordVonDerp]

I could be wrong, but I think where the trouble comes in, is that they were overly concerned with breaking the action economy when they designed the classes. It's a good thing to be wary of to be sure, since having a character that has powerful minions at it's disposal can very quickly trivialize most encounters. However, in my experience it's not a single persistent companion that causes that breakdown. Rather, the trouble comes in with casters that summon large numbers of minions.

The latter has been addressed reasonably well, I suppose, and seems to be much less of an issue than in some earlier editions. They just over did it on BM.

In my mind, BM would be fine if Ranger used it's bonus action to issue a command to the beast (such as "Kill!") which the beast would then carry out to the best of it's ability. I see no other particular penalty that need be paid to control it.

Break up the attack progression to work out something along the lines of: 2nd attack for ranger at 5th level, 2nd attack for beast at 12th level.

It simplifies everything, and what you're left with is a character that represents a base of 4 attacks (no more than the Fighter), but for whom each of those 4 attacks are weaker (the ranger lacks many damage steroids, and the beasts attacks are superior to other beasts but still inferior to PC attacks).

I haven't had the opportunity to see it play out in game as above, but we've talked about it and the next time we start fresh my group is going to try it. I don't see anything that jumps out at me as overtly too-strong with that setup.

That's what I've been saying this whole time. Also let beasts get con mod to hp on level up.

[Gurka]

That's what I've been saying this whole time. Also let beasts get con mod to hp on level up.

Honestly, I'd also be tempted to allow them attribute increases or feat selections (those that could be considered applicable) at certain levels as well, since they scale poorly compared to PCs in terms of damage and durability.

I don't really look at them as an expendable resource, like a summoned creature. They are as much a part of the character as anything else, and should be just as characterful. "This is not a mere dog, this is Cinderufus, god among hounds!" that sort of thing. If it's gonna be half of what makes the character unique, make it cool and feel like it's a boon, not a burden.

I want Jerry Lee, not a Furby.

[Steampunkette]

Exactly this. The "flavor" of the beast is lost under the current rules.

If you're worried about the flavor of the beast why are you arguing classes instead of spices?!

[LordVonDerp]

If you're worried about the flavor of the beast why are you arguing classes instead of spices?!

I have two drums, a cymbal, and a cliff. Let's do this.

[Person_Man]

Are there ways to do it without someone complaining?

People will always complain. This is the internet. You could discover the cure for HIV, and someone would complain that you didn't discover the cure for cancer.

Having said that, I think the trick is to create a setting where the internal logic of the world would put martial characters on the same footing as magical characters. For example, Dark Sun. Alternatively, you could have a world where everyone starts off as mundane but has it within them to be awakened and progress from low-fantasy powers to high fantasy craziness, and it can be manifested in many different ways. For example, Mage the Ascension.

[ThermalSlapShot]

People will always complain. This is the internet. You could discover the cure for HIV, and someone would complain that you didn't discover the cure for cancer.

Having said that, I think the trick is to create a setting where the internal logic of the world would put martial characters on the same footing as magical characters. For example, Dark Sun. Alternatively, you could have a world where everyone starts off as mundane but has it within them to be awakened and progress from low-fantasy powers to high fantasy craziness, and it can be manifested in many different ways. For example, Mage the Ascension.

There was a recent article (month or two old? Something like that) about a new HIV drug that was doing great in trials and was expected to go past that stage. One of the comments was someone complaining that they were wasting money and should use that money to fix pot holes... :smallfrown: The comments got deleted by the site.

Internal Logic has never been WotC's strong point.

[Giant2005]

I think the trick is to create a setting where the internal logic of the world would put martial characters on the same footing as magical characters. For example, Dark Sun. Alternatively, you could have a world where everyone starts off as mundane but has it within them to be awakened and progress from low-fantasy powers to high fantasy craziness, and it can be manifested in many different ways. For example, Mage the Ascension.
Those are simple enough solutions that would fix a lot of the issues some players have with the game. However those simple enough solutions have significant effects on the nature of the setting.
Wizards might be really, really stupid and not even considered balancing the Martials as superheroes but the odds have it that they have considered it and probably more than once. However they probably threw those ideas away because changing the game so significantly would alienate a majority of their playerbase and they would lose customers.
The reason that we have so many legacy spells and such in the game is because it is far too late for such sweeping changes - Wizards learned that the hard way with 4e. If you want to play a superhero game, you need to find some other system to do it in (Or simply house-rule this one). Wizards will never let DnD become what you want.

[Vogonjeltz]

which rubs salt in the wounds even more. Just like how the Ranger, at level 2, can/will/whatever gain the battle master feature a level before the actual battle master.

You mean, if they use the variant where they don't get spells? That's a trade off, it's not comparable, the Fighter chassis doesn't get maneuvers automatically, you have to take the specific path to gain them. It's the same as if there were a Fighter path, let's call it an "Eldritch Knight" that gets some form of spellcasting. They are equally valuable.


Sure, the damage is comparable (dual-wielding ranger with Hunter's Mark for 4d6+6=20, brown bear druid with a claw and bite for 1d8+2d6+8=19,5), but that's costing the ranger's daily spells, while the druid's only spending resources that return with a short rest. As for the druid putting themselves at risk, at level 2 & 3 they have incredible high hitpoints while wildshaped and can heal themselves with bonus actions. That would all be fine, but the druid has also full spellcasting. I'm just disappointed, that while the druid is slightly nerfed from 3.5, it's now a powerhouse at the low levels. But that's maybe something for a different thread.

To be fair, that 2nd level Circle of the Moon only Druid has only 3 1st level spell slots that they can toss those out the window and heal themselves for 1d8 a pop.
Basically it's an inferior version of cure wounds (in that it doesn't add spellcasting modifier and it's only self targeting) with the minor advantage of being a bonus action. And they can only do it 3 times. So they, on average, heal themselves for less than a one-handed longsword will hit for (assuming the swinger has even a +1 str mod). That's not great. The bear HP for a Moon Druid isn't bad (34) being on par with a lvl 3 Fighter, however they are practically guaranteed to get hit with only 11(!) AC. That devalues the HP substantially, instead of getting hit say, 1/4 times they're getting hit 3/4 times. So their hp is worth ~1/3 of what it is. Basically it's like they are an 11hp Fighter with a 19 AC in terms of durability. Not terrible, but I'd never categorize them as a "powerhouse".


There was a recent article (month or two old? Something like that) about a new HIV drug that was doing great in trials and was expected to go past that stage. One of the comments was someone complaining that they were wasting money and should use that money to fix pot holes... The comments got deleted by the site.

Internal Logic has never been WotC's strong point.

VICE has a news piece you might be interested in, on the use of viruses including HIV specifically, to target cancer cells.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/arts/television/enlisting-viruses-as-commandos-in-a-war-on-cancer.html

[ThermalSlapShot]

You mean, if they use the variant where they don't get spells? That's a trade off, it's not comparable, the Fighter chassis doesn't get maneuvers automatically, you have to take the specific path to gain them. It's the same as if there were a Fighter path, let's call it an "Eldritch Knight" that gets some form of spellcasting. They are equally valuable.


VICE has a news piece you might be interested in, on the use of viruses including HIV specifically, to target cancer cells.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/arts/television/enlisting-viruses-as-commandos-in-a-war-on-cancer.html

Not really, it is still a class who's feature is given to another class before the original class can get them.

I'm generally interested in all things science but, sadly, what made the article memorable was the potholes > medication dude.

[Gwendol]

What I don't get is why "Attack" could include tripping and grappling, but not multiattack?
Where is the logic in that?
Grappling is it's own "action" and shoving prone another. Poison is the only true passive rider to attack.

[Gurka]

What I don't get is why "Attack" could include tripping and grappling, but not multiattack?
Where is the logic in that?
Grappling is it's own "action" and shoving prone another. Poison is the only true passive rider to attack.

What really kills me about it, is that having multiattack is calculated into the beasts CR, so if you choose a CR appropriate beast with multiattack, that you functionally can not use, then you're actually getting a SUB CR creature. Seems like a really arbitrary limitation, to me.

[ThermalSlapShot]

What really kills me about it, is that having multiattack is calculated into the beasts CR, so if you choose a CR appropriate beast with multiattack, that you functionally can not use, then you're actually getting a SUB CR creature. Seems like a really arbitrary limitation, to me.

Yup, yet another 3e BAB syndrome effect.

[CNagy]

What really kills me about it, is that having multiattack is calculated into the beasts CR, so if you choose a CR appropriate beast with multiattack, that you functionally can not use, then you're actually getting a SUB CR creature. Seems like a really arbitrary limitation, to me.

So you don't choose a multiattack creature as your beast companion for the same reason that you did choose them before the rule was clarified: how the creature stacks up, favorably or unfavorably, against other available options.


What I don't get is why "Attack" could include tripping and grappling, but not multiattack?
Where is the logic in that?
Grappling is it's own "action" and shoving prone another. Poison is the only true passive rider to attack.

Probably because you can't shove/trip/grapple someone to death directly. Any benefit from those rider effects is not immediate--especially because they take place after you already hit (and used your action for the turn). Taking extra damage is immediate and obviously can result in the death of an enemy before it has a chance to do anything about it, so when weighing it as an ability for a single creature (not taking into account party-wide or pack benefits) doing extra damage is always worth more than tripping or grappling. A wolf that trips someone gets no benefit from it if their opponent just stands up on their turn, save that the opponent has less available movement. Sure that scenario changes when you have 4 wolves, but that doesn't make the ability more useful to an individual creature.

[Demonic Spoon]

So you don't choose a multiattack creature as your beast companion for the same reason that you did choose them before the rule was clarified: how the creature stacks up, favorably or unfavorably, against other available options.


there were good reasons to take pets other than the giant badger. The giant badger did DPR, but that's all it did.

Now it doesn't do anything.

[ThermalSlapShot]

there were good reasons to take pets other than the giant badger. The giant badger did DPR, but that's all it did.

Now it doesn't do anything.

Hey now, the animal companion can do so many great things! :smallsigh:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/610963595103498240

[Easy_Lee]

Hey now, the animal companion can do so many great things! :smallsigh:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/610963595103498240

I think it's funny that two of the things he listed, taking hits and blocking doorways, are things a companion would be absolutely awful for due to their low HP, lack of death saves without houseruling, and generally low saves and athletics checks.

[ThermalSlapShot]

I think it's funny that two of the things he listed, taking hits and blocking doorways, are things a companion would be absolutely awful for due to their low HP, lack of death saves without houseruling, and generally low saves and athletics checks.

Yup, when I read that tweet I really did laugh out loud.

[Gwendol]

So you don't choose a multiattack creature as your beast companion for the same reason that you did choose them before the rule was clarified: how the creature stacks up, favorably or unfavorably, against other available options.



Probably because you can't shove/trip/grapple someone to death directly. Any benefit from those rider effects is not immediate--especially because they take place after you already hit (and used your action for the turn). Taking extra damage is immediate and obviously can result in the death of an enemy before it has a chance to do anything about it, so when weighing it as an ability for a single creature (not taking into account party-wide or pack benefits) doing extra damage is always worth more than tripping or grappling. A wolf that trips someone gets no benefit from it if their opponent just stands up on their turn, save that the opponent has less available movement. Sure that scenario changes when you have 4 wolves, but that doesn't make the ability more useful to an individual creature.

That's not the problem with the rule. It's that multiattack is somehow not available until bestial fury, but order the beast to grapple or shove somehow is? Why?

It makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

[Vogonjeltz]

Not really, it is still a class who's feature is given to another class before the original class can get them.

It's not a class feature for Fighter, it's an Archetype feature. For Ranger it's a substitution of one class feature for a comparable feature. That's entirely reasonable.

[Gurka]

It's not a class feature for Fighter, it's an Archetype feature. For Ranger it's a substitution of one class feature for a comparable feature. That's entirely reasonable.

+1

Actually, I'd like to see both barbarian and rogue archetypes/variants that have combat superiority maneuvers.

And no reason you can't do something very similar for a non-spellcasting paladin.

[ThermalSlapShot]

It's not a class feature for Fighter, it's an Archetype feature. For Ranger it's a substitution of one class feature for a comparable feature. That's entirely reasonable.

That doesn't matter one bit.

Archetypes only go toward specific classes. They are that class, just a specific type of class.

The Ranger isn't becoming a fighter or Battle Master. Yet has learned how to use those features one level earlier than the class that gives them out. Not only that but they progress with the maneuver as if they were a fighter or battle master. It would make sense if they became a Battle Master Ranger, but they do not.

Unless you are saying that an evocation wizard isn't a wizard? A vengeance paladin isn't a paladin?

Your point makes no sense.

It would be like if I took all the evocation features (or some) and gave them to the cleric but at one level earlier.

[D.U.P.A.]

Could a medium Beastmaster have and ride a mule as its beast? Since mule has a medium size, but as carrying capacity is counting as large, or is this property only for luggage?

[ThermalSlapShot]

Could a medium Beastmaster have and ride a mule as its beast? Since mule has a medium size, but as carrying capacity is counting as large, or is this property only for luggage?

I don't see why not. Just make sure to use the Mount rules instead of the BM rules, it turns out better that way.

[Easy_Lee]

Could a medium Beastmaster have and ride a mule as its beast? Since mule has a medium size, but as carrying capacity is counting as large, or is this property only for luggage?

Mounts have to be one size larger, so technically no. But if you ask me, beast masters ought to be able to have large pets, or find large versions of medium creatures for their pets, for the sake of race balance. See what your DM thinks.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Mounts have to be one size larger, so technically no. But if you ask me, beast masters ought to be able to have large pets, or find large versions of medium creatures for their pets, for the sake of race balance. See what your DM thinks.

Mules can be mounts because of their ability to act as one size larger for carrying issues.

If not then we have an in world problem as mule/donkeys don't add up.

[D.U.P.A.]

Because in real world, a mule could be mounted (although was never useful for combat situations).

[CNagy]

That's not the problem with the rule. It's that multiattack is somehow not available until bestial fury, but order the beast to grapple or shove somehow is? Why?

It makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

Grapple and shove are attack actions. You can order a beast to make an attack action.
Multiattack is a multiattack action. You can't order a beast to make a multiattack action--until you can, with bestial fury.

It makes sense because the first two are something you can use your attack action to do.

[Giant2005]

I used the DMG's Monster Creation rules to create some new CR 1/4 beasts that are intended for Beastmaster Animal Companions.
I figured I'd drop a link here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?423273-Five-New-Specialist-Companions-for-the-Beastmaster&p=19434014#post19434014) for those that think the BM is too weak and might like some stronger options for their games.

[Gurka]

I used the DMG's Monster Creation rules to create some new CR 1/4 beasts that are intended for Beastmaster Animal Companions.
I figured I'd drop a link here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?423273-Five-New-Specialist-Companions-for-the-Beastmaster&p=19434014#post19434014) for those that think the BM is too weak and might like some stronger options for their games.

At the risk of seeming dumb, in case I'm doing something wrong (and probably very simple)... I can't see any of the content behind your spoiler tabs. They show as broken images. I'm interested to see them though.

[Giant2005]

At the risk of seeming dumb, in case I'm doing something wrong (and probably very simple)... I can't see any of the content behind your spoiler tabs. They show as broken images. I'm interested to see them though.

Nope, the dumb was on me - I tried to make Dropbox do the work of an image hosting site. Although it looked fine on my end, it obviously didn't work.
It should work now.

[ThermalSlapShot]

I used the DMG's Monster Creation rules to create some new CR 1/4 beasts that are intended for Beastmaster Animal Companions.
I figured I'd drop a link here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?423273-Five-New-Specialist-Companions-for-the-Beastmaster&p=19434014#post19434014) for those that think the BM is too weak and might like some stronger options for their games.

I would like to see rejuvenation be put on all Ranger companions in some way. Give them some sort of "Die Hard" feature. Have different conditions for different beasts.

[Mara]

Here is something I thought the playground would like to see.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/610961999082745856

Multiattack can't be used until Bestial Fury. My house rule will say otherwise though :smallbiggrin:.

Well that's not what the rules say.

[Vogonjeltz]

That doesn't matter one bit.

Archetypes only go toward specific classes. They are that class, just a specific type of class.

The Ranger isn't becoming a fighter or Battle Master. Yet has learned how to use those features one level earlier than the class that gives them out. Not only that but they progress with the maneuver as if they were a fighter or battle master. It would make sense if they became a Battle Master Ranger, but they do not.

Unless you are saying that an evocation wizard isn't a wizard? A vengeance paladin isn't a paladin?

Your point makes no sense.

It would be like if I took all the evocation features (or some) and gave them to the cleric but at one level earlier.

Yes, archetypes are different. They change how the class operates, if you pick one, you don't get the other. A Ranger who no longer has spells is being compensated by having Maneuvers. The very document that the spell-less Ranger exists in explains this in detail.

Rangers learn spells at 2nd level, because the maneuvers are a substitute, they learn the maneuvers at 2nd level. It has literally nothing to do with their archetype.

Fighters do not learn maneuvers at all, only Battlemasters learn maneuvers. A Battlemaster is a sort of Fighter, but a Fighter is not a sort of Battlemaster.

So an Evoker is a Wizard, but a Wizard is not an Evoker.

Specific vs General.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Well that's not what the rules say.

Actually because of the errata, that is what the rules say.

[Gwendol]

Grapple and shove are attack actions. You can order a beast to make an attack action.
Multiattack is a multiattack action. You can't order a beast to make a multiattack action--until you can, with bestial fury.

It makes sense because the first two are something you can use your attack action to do.

Are you sure Multiattack is a separate action? Because on p 11 of the MM it's listed as an ability to make multiple attacks on its turn. The hunter ranger multiattack ability also does not mention this being a separate type of combat action. That Multiattack is listed under Actions in the statblock doesn't change the fact that it's defined as an ability and not an action (separate from the attack action). The statblock just shows what the monster can do.
In the case of the badger, it has an ability to make multiple attacks using its (attack) action.

[Easy_Lee]

Are you sure Multiattack is a separate action? Because on p 11 of the MM it's listed as an ability to make multiple attacks on its turn. The hunter ranger multiattack ability also does not mention this being a separate type of combat action. That Multiattack is listed under Actions in the statblock doesn't change the fact that it's defined as an ability and not an action (separate from the attack action). The statblock just shows what the monster can do.
In the case of the badger, it has an ability to make multiple attacks using its (attack) action.

It goes along with this general question: what can I command my beast to do, and does it take my action to do so? The answer should be, "anything it's capable of, and no." That's the only thing that would make the beast feel like an actual companion. But WotC's answer is, and will likely remain, "only what the BM section specifically says that you can command it to do, and always."

[Gwendol]

Well, since multiattack is an ability and not an action, commanding the badger to attack will make it use multiattack, typically, just as another creature would use a an attack to start a grapple, swallow whole, constrict, or whatever.

[Mara]

Actually because of the errata, that is what the rules say. The errata is not in my book nor has some sort of free SRD been changed, so it is ignored.

[Demonic Spoon]

The errata is not in my book nor has some sort of free SRD been changed, so it is ignored.

The errata went into the basic rules, so yes, the free source of rules has been changed.

Also, given that the errata is now in all future printings of the book, the basic rules, and given that the errata exists primarily to correct things that were ambiguous before rather than make changes to existing RAW...you're not going to go far trying to argue that errata doesn't count here.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Well, since multiattack is an ability and not an action, commanding the badger to attack will make it use multiattack, typically, just as another creature would use a an attack to start a grapple, swallow whole, constrict, or whatever.

One would think that this is common sense but wotc isn't really worried about common sense or balance.


The errata is not in my book nor has some sort of free SRD been changed, so it is ignored.


The errata went into the basic rules, so yes, the free source of rules has been changed.

Also, given that the errata is now in all future printings of the book, the basic rules, and given that the errata exists primarily to correct things that were ambiguous before rather than make changes to existing RAW...you're not going to go far trying to argue that errata doesn't count here.


Mara, this above from DS is spot on.

[Xetheral]

Well, since multiattack is an ability and not an action, commanding the badger to attack will make it use multiattack, typically, just as another creature would use a an attack to start a grapple, swallow whole, constrict, or whatever.

The errata explicitly describes multiattack as an action.

[Gwendol]

The errata explicitly describes multiattack as an action.

It does, but that doesn't change the definition, which is the same for hunter rangers and monsters. In this case, the errata seems to be wrong, or at least not specific enough. It makes no sense to have multiattack be a separate action, just to screw the BM over. It's an ability which allows for multiple attacks using the attack action.

[ThermalSlapShot]

It does, but that doesn't change the definition, which is the same for hunter rangers and monsters. In this case, the errata seems to be wrong, or at least not specific enough. It makes no sense to have multiattack be a separate action, just to screw the BM over. It's an ability which allows for multiple attacks using the attack action.

It is less that the errata is wrong, as it was made to clarify intent, but the creators are wrong.

The developers made X ability for Y creatures and put them together with Z other abilities.

The devs have a thought process of *non-magic = badwrongfun* and let that bias leak into the game.

So they take rules that are susposed to have been made using plain english and try to manipulate them back into their intent (non-magic = badwrongfun) even though their plain english rules says otherwise.

So the errata is correct, but the developers don't know their own stuff.

It is kind of like... If 4 people are designing a car and they don't talk to each other and 2 builds a hybrid, 1 builds a SUV, and the 4th builds a moped. Then one guy tries to explain things via twitter when he really wanted a jetski out of the collaboration.

5e looks like the people who made it wasn't very organized on a conceptual level. Some people wanted non-magic = badwrongfun while others did not.

[Gwendol]

I wouldn't go that far. It's just that whatever was intended doesn't follow what is written.

[Giant2005]

It is less that the errata is wrong

The errata really could be wrong.
The errata is just a highly contracted, retold version of whatever they have put in the new book printings.
Such a format cannot be taken as a foolproof document - it is equally prone to error as someone giving you a synopsis of paper they wrote. They obviously know their subject but it is understandable and even expected for them to recount their own words with different terminology that could lead to very different interpretations that wouldn't otherwise be possible within the original document.

[Mara]

The errata went into the basic rules, so yes, the free source of rules has been changed.

Also, given that the errata is now in all future printings of the book, the basic rules, and given that the errata exists primarily to correct things that were ambiguous before rather than make changes to existing RAW...you're not going to go far trying to argue that errata doesn't count here.The basic rules are not something people should actually play with.

My group doesn't use future printings of the book.

The errata also contained many poor nonsensical changes that in my opinion only worsened the product. Furthermore, the errata only makes it clear that you cannot multi-attack twice. A pet taking the attack action can still multi-attack. The linked tweet has no basis in the rules.

[Demonic Spoon]

The basic rules are not something people should actually play with.

My group doesn't use future printings of the book.

The errata also contained many poor nonsensical changes that in my opinion only worsened the product. Furthermore, the errata only makes it clear that you cannot multi-attack twice. A pet taking the attack action can still multi-attack. The linked tweet has no basis in the rules.

That's cool for your group, but incredibly unhelpful when you're discussing things with people on the internet. In five years, only the early adopters of 5e with their original PHBs will have access to the pre-errata set of rules. Are you then going to tell everyone else who bought a PHB after the errata that their RAW is wrong, and that if they want to know what the RAW says, they have to buy a first-run PHB?

RAW describes the current official set of rules. The reason we use the RAW is so that we have some common starting point for discussion. I'm sure you can see why pre-errata rules are not helpful for that, and will become less and less helpful as time goes on.

Note that I don't actually disagree with you with with regards to multiattack - I think WotC could have gotten away with saying that ranger beasts could multiattack by default, and the game would be better for it. But they didn't - the new, clarified RAW, the one that will henceforth appear everywhere, is that multiattack cannot be used pre-level 11. So I will houserule it, and tell everyone else that they should houserule it too, but not try to convince people that my preferred set of rules is the RAW - it's not.

[Gwendol]

I'm calling BS on the Bestial Fury "errata".

Multiattack is not an action - it's an ability applied using the attack action. This is true for the hunter ranger as well as for monsters (p 11 of the MM). There is no "Multiattack" action listed in the PHB in the combat chapter, nor have I seen it elsewhere. That multiattack is listed under actions in the MM statblocks is irrelevant, since it still isn't defined as an action by itself (it's a header to list what attacks the monster can do when using the ability).

Mara has it right in that the text in the errata appears to address not being able to multiattack twice in a round with bestial fury, not limiting multiattack at earlier levels.

So, badger-loving BM's, you can safely expect your striped friend to tear through enemies at it's listed efficiency.

[Gurka]

Talking about how a class should or should not function is a great conversation to have, but saying that official errata is not valid isn't constructive. It's like having an argument over the color of the sky, or gravity. You can complain all you want about why it is the way it is, but you can't really argue WHAT it is.

[Gwendol]

Talking about how a class should or should not function is a great conversation to have, but saying that official errata is not valid isn't constructive. It's like having an argument over the color of the sky, or gravity. You can complain all you want about why it is the way it is, but you can't really argue WHAT it is.

The errata doesn't really say this or that, it's the Playground interpretation of the errata I'm objecting to.

[Easy_Lee]

The errata doesn't really say this or that, it's the Playground interpretation of the errata I'm objecting to.

I tend to agree with your reasoning. The multiattack action is listed under the "actions" section of the beast's statblock. No other beast action, such as pounce, is denied by WotC. They specifically went after multiattack, as if this is an action that a beast master cannot command his companion to do.

There are a lot of really nasty words I could use to describe their logic here, but the one I will use is "inconsistent." Beast masters either may command their companions to take actions the beast is capable of taking, which makes sense, or they cannot, in which case companions with poison or flight are the only valid choices. This is a road that I do not believe WotC wishes to go down.

That said, their errata was once again unclear. It could mean "your beast may normally only make one attack, but you may order it to make the multiattack action after 11th level." It could also mean, "at 11th level, when your companion gains the ability to make a second attack, you may command it to take the multiattack action instead of the second attack." I'm pretty sure I know which one they were going for, but it just goes to show that they haven't learned to be clear.

[Xetheral]

There is no "Multiattack" action listed in the PHB in the combat chapter

On page 192 of the PHB, in the combat chapter, it says:

"When you take your action on your turn you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise. Many monsters have action options of their own in their stat blocks." (Emphasis added.)

So, the PHB tells us to look in the MM for other Actions, and in the Monster Manual, each stat block does indeed have a section labeled "Actions". It all seems to fit together quite nicely with Multiattack as an action.

[Gwendol]

Except for the fact that Multiattack is never defined as an action, but as an ability, which is also granted to hunter rangers. The action to take when using multiattack is the attack action.

[Xetheral]

Except for the fact that Multiattack is never defined as an action, but as an ability, which is also granted to hunter rangers. The action to take when using multiattack is the attack action.

It's listed as an action right where the PHB told us to look for monster actions: in the stat block.

Also, Hunter Rangers get "Multiattack Defense"... is that what you're referring to? Because there is no hunter ability called "multiattack".

If Multiattack modified the Attack action or required the Attack action to function, it would explicitly say it did, just like Extra Attack and everything else that uses or depends on Attack actions.

[Gwendol]

Yes, but as noted it is not defined as an action but as an ability. That's really all that matters. They don't need to explicitly state what action it is as it kind of is implied. In the PHB there is the section "Actions in Combat" under which multiattack again is not listed, probably because there is no need seeing as this is an attack action.
Hunter rangers get to choose between two multiattacks: volley and whirlwind.

[Xetheral]

Yes, but as noted it is not defined as an action but as an ability. That's really all that matters. They don't need to explicitly state what action it is as it kind of is implied. In the PHB there is the section "Actions in Combat" under which multiattack again is not listed, probably because there is no need seeing as this is an attack action.
Hunter rangers get to choose between two multiattacks: volley and whirlwind.

I disagree. It seems very clear from both the stat blocks and the errata that it is defined as an Action, not as an ability.

And both Volley and Whirlwind don't use the attack action: they're their own actions.

[Gwendol]

The MM p 11 disagrees with you. Look under "Multiattack".