Are ranger beastmaster as bad as I think

[Dark Ass4ssin 1]

So, wanting to play a character with a deadly kitty as a pet I decided to look at the rangers beastmaster archetype... The results were disappointing.

I consider myself to be decent at seeing the hidden synergies behind class abilities, and I'm not saying that beastmaster is bad, but compared to other archetypes the ranger has, it seems bad.

You don't get any "decent" abilities with your animal untill 11th lv. With bestial fury, and then the prof. Bonus to damage and second attack still are underwhelming.

Not only that the animal is pivotal to the entire archetype, nothing really helps the ranger him/herself improve.

I have come to the conclusion that I am just missing something (I hope), and hope you guyscan tell me what It is.

[SouthpawSoldier]

Running opinion is that the BM ranger really is a BM design. There are loads of fixes across the Playground.

It's even to the point that the devs have acknowledged everyone's frustration, and supposedly are working on options to make it not suck. I'm not holding my breath.

[Giant2005]

Generally those that think the BM under-performs also tend to be in the group that have never played a BM.
The BM's companion is actually incredibly strong - with its high to-hit, damage and AC potential, it is very capable of out-performing the other martials prior to even considering the Ranger's own influence. Although it is extremely susceptible to magic and would easily be mopped up by virtually any caster and that is a weakness that the companion's Martial class rivals do not share. It also requires ensuring that your companion is an animal worth using. Assuming your "Kitty" is a Panther, you should be fairly okay as Panthers are pretty good choices (Not the best, but good enough to be superior to your martial allies).

[noce]

Maybe it's not too bad, but it's just silly.

You have to command your pet to make the same action every turn.
Seriously? It's not a goldfish with short term memory.

The simplest fix for the archetype (and the most logical one) is this: command your pet to make an action and it will continue that action if applicable, until you command otherwise.

Maybe this woul break action economy, but rules should be based on common sense.
A domestic dog would defend his master without being commanded directly, a wild animal would defend himself, and a trained animal should remember a command for more than six seconds.


-EDIT-

Now that I'm thinking about it, it's even more unrealistic.
A well trained animal is able to follow vocal commands with no gestures or anything.
Since speaking is a free action, a ranger shouldn't even waste an action to give it a command.

I know, wild animals aren't dogs. But rangers aren't normal trainers either. A ranger magically bonds (PHB 93) with his beast.

[Giant2005]

Maybe it's not too bad, but it's just silly.

You have to command your pet to make the same action every turn.
Seriously? It's not a goldfish with short term memory.

The simplest fix for the archetype (and the most logical one) is this: command your pet to make an action and it will continue that action if applicable, until you command otherwise.

Maybe this woul break action economy, but rules should be based on common sense.
A domestic dog would defend his master without being commanded directly, a wild animal would defend himself, and a trained animal should remember a command for more than six seconds.


-EDIT-

Now that I'm thinking about it, it's even more unrealistic.
A well trained animal is able to follow vocal commands with no gestures or anything.
Since speaking is a free action, a ranger shouldn't even waste an action to give it a command.

I know, wild animals aren't dogs. But rangers aren't normal trainers either. A ranger magically bonds (PHB 93) with his beast.

EasyLee proposed a solution to that issue that doesn't break the game. Essentially you just take away the Beastmaster's Extra Attack feature and let the Beast attack independently. It fixes up the issue of verisimilitude but it does come at the expense of the Ranger's own options.

[DersitePhantom]

Maybe it's not too bad, but it's just silly.

You have to command your pet to make the same action every turn.
Seriously? It's not a goldfish with short term memory.

The simplest fix for the archetype (and the most logical one) is this: command your pet to make an action and it will continue that action if applicable, until you command otherwise.

Maybe this woul break action economy, but rules should be based on common sense.
A domestic dog would defend his master without being commanded directly, a wild animal would defend himself, and a trained animal should remember a command for more than six seconds.

You were right when you said it could break action economy. People often propose this fix, but it is blatantly overpowered.

My personal fix is to allow dodging, dashing and disengaging without the ranger's action, but attacking still requires it. That way the beast doesn't stand around doing nothing when the ranger wants to attack (it's taking the time to reposition or look out for itself) without breaking the game.

Keep in mind that a beast can still use attacks of opportunity, so it can be a good way to lock down enemies and control the battlefield.

[PoeticDwarf]

So, wanting to play a character with a deadly kitty as a pet I decided to look at the rangers beastmaster archetype... The results were disappointing.

I consider myself to be decent at seeing the hidden synergies behind class abilities, and I'm not saying that beastmaster is bad, but compared to other archetypes the ranger has, it seems bad.

You don't get any "decent" abilities with your animal untill 11th lv. With bestial fury, and then the prof. Bonus to damage and second attack still are underwhelming.

Not only that the animal is pivotal to the entire archetype, nothing really helps the ranger him/herself improve.

I have come to the conclusion that I am just missing something (I hope), and hope you guyscan tell me what It is.

I don't know what you mean, the help action as bonus action is very usefull. Two attacks mean that a wolf at lv. 20 can do, with +10 to hit, 4d4+16 damage, that's not that good. But more than you can do with one attack, you still have one attack yourself for 1d10 (because beast you can get loadin bow) +5 damage.

So you do 36,5 instead of 19 damage with your little friend.

[EvilAnagram]

So, wanting to play a character with a deadly kitty as a pet I decided to look at the rangers beastmaster archetype... The results were disappointing.

I consider myself to be decent at seeing the hidden synergies behind class abilities, and I'm not saying that beastmaster is bad, but compared to other archetypes the ranger has, it seems bad.

You don't get any "decent" abilities with your animal untill 11th lv. With bestial fury, and then the prof. Bonus to damage and second attack still are underwhelming.

Not only that the animal is pivotal to the entire archetype, nothing really helps the ranger him/herself improve.

I have come to the conclusion that I am just missing something (I hope), and hope you guyscan tell me what It is.

Ignoring the "fixes" for now, as far as damage is concerned, a panther will keep you competitive with other classes.

Let's look at its damage at level 5:

1d4+5 claw damage
1d6+5 bite damage with Pounce
1d8+4 damage from Ranger
Average total damage is 24.5

That doesn't include Hunter's Mark.

Compare to a Rogue at that level, who can dish out 1d8+3d6+4 damage, averaging 19.

A great weapon Fighter could potentially have 24.7 damage, doubling if he action surges.

[GiantOctopodes]

Ignoring the "fixes" for now, as far as damage is concerned, a panther will keep you competitive with other classes.

Let's look at its damage at level 5:

1d4+5 claw damage
1d6+5 bite damage with Pounce
1d8+4 damage from Ranger
Average total damage is 24.5

That doesn't include Hunter's Mark.

Compare to a Rogue at that level, who can dish out 1d8+3d6+4 damage, averaging 19.

A great weapon Fighter could potentially have 24.7 damage, doubling if he action surges.

I will point out that per RAW, the panther does not get the bite attack from pounce. Since he doesn't take any actions unless you command him to, and there is no way to command him to use his bonus action attack, per RAW he does not take it. Now, if your DM allows him to take it (which would absolutely qualify as a "fix", just saying), then your point stands.

[EvilAnagram]

I will point out that per RAW, the panther does not get the bite attack from pounce. Since he doesn't take any actions unless you command him to, and there is no way to command him to use his bonus action attack, per RAW he does not take it. Now, if your DM allows him to take it (which would absolutely qualify as a "fix", just saying), then your point stands.

Bonus actions are granted by circumstances. If I fulfill the requirements for taking one, I can take it. In this instance, Pounce allows you to use your bonus action to make the bite.

And even if you couldn't, Hunter's Mark adds a d6, so you're still slightly higher damage than the Rogue.

[Person_Man]

The Beastmaster Ranger is not as terrible as it seems (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?405369-Beastmaster-Ranger-Not-as-terrible-as-it-seems), assuming that your DM allows some fairly reasonable RAI interpretations. In particular, as long as the DM allows the Companion to use its Reaction and Bonus Action, you'll be fine. Even if he doesn't allow the Bonus Action but still allows the Reaction, the Wolf is a perfectly viable.

In addition to your at-will attacks, don't overlook the other benefits of having a Companion. It can make and Help on Skill checks (especially Perception and Survival), if you're a halfling you can ride it as a mount it increases your movement speed, and its another bag of hit points that can soak up enemy attacks.

[EvilAnagram]

The errata has clarified that your companion absolutely gets to make opportunity attacks and reactions without your needing to give anything up.

[Dark Ass4ssin 1]

Thanks for the answers guys, ill bring up a few of the solutions to the table.

[PhantomRenegade]

You were right when you said it could break action economy. People often propose this fix, but it is blatantly overpowered.The action economy argument is complete and utter hogwash, with A SPELL the paladin can summon a companion with its own full turn, the paladins get this at level 5, meanwhile the beastmaster's whole class archetype never gets its own turn.

[Giant2005]

The action economy argument is complete and utter hogwash, with A SPELL the paladin can summon a companion with its own full turn, the paladins get this at level 5, meanwhile the beastmaster's whole class archetype never gets its own turn.

That full turn comes with some serious Opportunity Costs though - Opportunity Costs that are generally more costly than the action you get in return. Without DM fiat, it is also considerably less effective than the Ranger's companion.
While your statement is indeed true in theory, in practice that "companion" the Paladin summons doesn't get a full turn, not unless the Paladin or the Paladin's enemy is extremely stupid.

[GiantOctopodes]

That full turn comes with some serious Opportunity Costs though - Opportunity Costs that are generally more costly than the action you get in return. Without DM fiat, it is also considerably less effective than the Ranger's companion.
While your statement is indeed true in theory, in practice that "companion" the Paladin summons doesn't get a full turn, not unless the Paladin or the Paladin's enemy is extremely stupid.

What are you talking about? What opportunity costs? The duration is instantaneous- until and unless the steed is killed, it costs absolutely Nothing to have him around, and if and when he is killed, it costs only a spell slot to bring him back. Since the Paladin gets to switch prepared spells every day, and it only has a 10 minute cast time, you don't even need to keep it prepared- if and when he does die, just prepare the spell and bring him back the next day.

Unless you are trying to suggest that the DM and enemies will *always* focus fire kill the steed, so it'll cost a bunch of spell slots to keep him around? With mounted combatant I really don't see how that could be the case. I'm sorry, but unless I'm missing something, I'm just not seeing these "opportunity costs" at all. And why wouldn't it get a full turn? Because the enemy will kill it before it ever goes? Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding something here.

I do agree about being less effective though- the Paladin's mount is not adding proficiency bonus to attack rolls or damage. This has far greater of an impact than many people give credit for, especially once the second attack comes into play for the Ranger.

[Giant2005]

What are you talking about? What opportunity costs? The duration is instantaneous- until and unless the steed is killed, it costs absolutely Nothing to have him around, and if and when he is killed, it costs only a spell slot to bring him back. Since the Paladin gets to switch prepared spells every day, and it only has a 10 minute cast time, you don't even need to keep it prepared- if and when he does die, just prepare the spell and bring him back the next day.

Unless you are trying to suggest that the DM and enemies will *always* focus fire kill the steed, so it'll cost a bunch of spell slots to keep him around? With mounted combatant I really don't see how that could be the case. I'm sorry, but unless I'm missing something, I'm just not seeing these "opportunity costs" at all. And why wouldn't it get a full turn? Because the enemy will kill it before it ever goes? Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding something here.

I do agree about being less effective though- the Paladin's mount is not adding proficiency bonus to attack rolls or damage. This has far greater of an impact than many people give credit for, especially once the second attack comes into play for the Ranger.

No, it is about being a controlled or uncontrolled mount.
If it is being controlled then it can't attack at all so I am assuming that it is acting of the uncontrolled variety. The opportunity cost of using an uncontrolled mount is pretty simple - the Paladin has to wait for the Mount's turn before he can move into melee range. That means either skipping his own turn until the mount has moved into range (Which wouldn't be that helpful because a smart enemy would simply move back again) or readying an action. If he readies an action and waits for the mounts turn to move into melee range before attacking, he doesn't get to use his Extra Attack feature and essentially gives up the same attack that the Ranger gives up.

[GiantOctopodes]

No, it is about being a controlled or uncontrolled mount.
If it is being controlled then it can't attack at all so I am assuming that it is acting of the uncontrolled variety. The opportunity cost of using an uncontrolled mount is pretty simple - the Paladin has to wait for the Mount's turn before he can move into melee range. That means either skipping his own turn until the mount has moved into range (Which wouldn't be that helpful because a smart enemy would simply move back again) or readying an action. If he readies an action and waits for the mounts turn to move into melee range before attacking, he doesn't get to use his Extra Attack feature and essentially gives up the same attack that the Ranger gives up.

It's actually worse than that, because the Paladin also loses any bonus action attacks he would normally be gaining. However, that's assuming the Paladin doesn't just dismount and walk up to a creature if the turn order doesn't work out favorably. The Paladin can mount and dismount freely to ensure that he doesn't lose any actions at all, and his "mount" will continue to follow his orders without fail, getting its full action set without expenditure from the Paladin. Granted, it works out best if the Paladin's turn is immediately after the mount in the turn order (in which case the issues you identify do not exist), and certainly granted, a ranged combatant (such as the Ranger often is and the Paladin rarely is) benefits most from an independent mount. I had actually never realized that Extra Attack does not work when readied (thanks to the "on your turn" part of its verbiage), thank you for pointing that out!

Note too that an enemy that constantly retreats from the mounted paladin draws two AoOs- one from the paladin and one from the mount. Unless, of course, it disengages, but then it's lost its action and wasted its entire turn. Note too that a wise Paladin will take Sentinel to avoid the enemy being successful in retreating. Just with that alone, much of the (very situational) opportunity cost can be mitigated.

[Giant2005]

It's actually worse than that, because the Paladin also loses any bonus action attacks he would normally be gaining. However, that's assuming the Paladin doesn't just dismount and walk up to a creature if the turn order doesn't work out favorably. The Paladin can mount and dismount freely to ensure that he doesn't lose any actions at all, and his "mount" will continue to follow his orders without fail, getting its full action set without expenditure from the Paladin.

That just kind of blows my mind and along with it, the rules of the game. The truth is that the Find Steed spell doesn't create any new provisions for the Steed to attack any more than an ordinary animal would attack. The problem is that we don't have any actual rules for player controlled pets like that... We have the Mounted Combat rules which give provisions for an uncontrolled mount to attack and the same should be true of that same uncontrolled animal that doesn't happen to have a person sitting on its back.
The problem is, that would make a Ranger's Animal Companion strictly inferior to that of an untrained, or less trained animal and most DMs would impose those same conditions on any other animal to maintain both balance and our suspension of disbelief.
The bottom line is that the game doesn't actually provide any rules for such an eventuality, so the DM has to make them up on their own - it doesn't make sense for the Ranger that dedicates his subclass to training one, solitary animal to be worse at training that animal than anyone else would be when training that same animal.

[GiantOctopodes]

That just kind of blows my mind and along with it, the rules of the game. The truth is that the Find Steed spell doesn't create any new provisions for the Steed to attack any more than an ordinary animal would attack. The problem is that we don't have any actual rules for player controlled pets like that... We have the Mounted Combat rules which give provisions for an uncontrolled mount to attack and the same should be true of that same uncontrolled animal that doesn't happen to have a person sitting on its back.
The problem is, that would make a Ranger's Animal Companion strictly inferior to that of an untrained, or less trained animal and most DMs would impose those same conditions on any other animal to maintain both balance and our suspension of disbelief.
The bottom line is that the game doesn't actually provide any rules for such an eventuality, so the DM has to make them up on their own - it doesn't make sense for the Ranger that dedicates his subclass to training one, solitary animal to be worse at training that animal than anyone else would be when training that same animal.

Well, any uncontrolled mount (anything with int 6 or above) is basically a NPC, and acts on its turn at the whim of the individual controlling it, same as a Druid would if it were acting as someone's mount, or whatever else. It's a creature in the combat, and it acts accordingly. The only difference is the Paladin's find steed explicitly makes it loyal and obedient to you, fighting as a seamless unit, and giving you an easy means to communicate with it. Otherwise you have it exactly right, anyone can pick up an animal companion (or a hireling, for that matter) and it will act on its turn with its full action set like anyone else involved in combat, and just like you can tell the other players what you think they should do and they'll do that (if they think it's a good idea) or ignore you (if they think it's not) the animal companion may or may not follow their verbal instructions / orders, but it will use its full action compliment regardless. Also note that verbal communication explicitly does not require the use of an action. Only the Beastmaster ever uses actions to command things. The Druid can use Conjure Animals to call forth a creature to use as a mount or animal companion, they also act on their own turn (independent or uncontrolled mount), follow all the orders of the druid, and it explicitly takes no action to direct them to do something. Nor does it take an action to direct fey, elementals, woodland beings, or anything else verbally. Animated objects, unseen servants and undead take a bonus action to command mentally, but only the beastmaster uses its action to direct anyone or anything to do anything.

The rules are all there, regardless of how distasteful we find the situation. Indeed, it takes far more effort for a Ranger to direct his Panther animal companion to attack than it would if it was just a random panther he had befriended using Animal Friendship. Indeed, unlike the random Panther, his companion will not attack creatures without him directing it to do so. And indeed, unlike the random panther, his companion will not use the bonus action attack it gains, only its action (if and only if he directs it to do so, costing him an action or bonus action in the process) and its reaction. That's the rules as written.

However, this is balanced by the Ranger's animal companion gaining the ranger's proficiency bonus to its attacks and damage. It is for that reason (the superior HP, attack value, and damage value) that the Ranger pays the price in terms of action economy. As has been mentioned numerous times in various threads, thanks to the damage bonus, the creature can and often will exceed the damage the Ranger themselves would do using their attack, and can hit more consistently as well. If the Ranger truly wants to be a Beastmaster, nothing at all stops him from befriending an entire pack of wolves that he has roll around with him, same as a Necromancer may build an army of undead. He can have the pack alpha be his companion, and manually direct it, even as the rest of the wolves swarm around without direction.

Do I personally think it's balanced? No, not at all, I'd never play a Beastmaster under the RAW, and I'd discourage any of my players from doing so, or work with them on how to make it more acceptable to me. Nonetheless, I have no personal experience with the Beastmaster, and others who do claim it's ok. So it can't be as bad as it appears on the surface of things.

Edit: Oh, and in terms of an uncontrolled animal that doesn't have a person sitting on its back (something with int less than 3) note the rule "A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it." Why would that even be in dispute? Well, because it's initiative just changed to match yours. As such, if it had a higher initiative, it may have already moved and acted. When you get on, it gets a turn *again* on your initiative order, granting new movement and a new action for it. Particularly cheesy players can have speak with animals going, and use all of their movement for each turn mounting the creature, using it as a mount, then dismounting at the end of their turn so their "mount" also gets a turn of its own. Of course, I wouldn't expect the mount to survive that activity particularly long, I'm just saying it's RAW legal. My point being that the only time a creature *doesn't* get its full action set is expressly when it has an int of less than 6 and has a rider directing its actions, or of course if it's the beastmaster's companion.

[Giant2005]

The rules are all there, regardless of how distasteful we find the situation. Indeed, it takes far more effort for a Ranger to direct his Panther animal companion to attack than it would if it was just a random panther he had befriended using Animal Friendship. Indeed, unlike the random Panther, his companion will not attack creatures without him directing it to do so. And indeed, unlike the random panther, his companion will not use the bonus action attack it gains, only its action (if and only if he directs it to do so, costing him an action or bonus action in the process) and its reaction. That's the rules as written.

Not really - as I said before, we don't have any general rules regarding controlling animals in combat. We have the rules regarding the Ranger's animal companion and some similar spells state what kind of action is required for their summoned animals to be controlled (if any) but we do not have any rules regarding anything else. If I bought a Mastiff, it is entirely up to my DM as to whether or not having that Mastiff attack requires my action, or whether it can even join the combat at all. Most DMs wouldn't rule that a random creature is more efficient than the heavily trained Companion of the Ranger, not unless they were also going to house-rule they same benefit to the Ranger and his companion too - anything less than that is basically passive-aggressively telling the player of the Ranger that you do not want him at your game and asking him to leave.

[GiantOctopodes]

Not really - as I said before, we don't have any general rules regarding controlling animals in combat. We have the rules regarding the Ranger's animal companion and some similar spells state what kind of action is required for their summoned animals to be controlled (if any) but we do not have any rules regarding anything else.


Right, because we don't need rules for anything else. It's an NPC, it's not under direct player control. We agree on that, right? *If* you have a means of communicating with it verbally (such as speak with animals), those communication systems all have their own rules, including the specific statement that verbal communication does not require an action. Hopefully we also agree on that?


If I bought a Mastiff, it is entirely up to my DM as to whether or not having that Mastiff attack requires my action, or whether it can even join the combat at all.
Certainly the DM, on the Mastiff's turn, can have it just stand there, cower, flee, or do whatever else, it is after all a NPC under his control. However, there is no support under the rules for it attacking using your action. What would that action even be, that you were using in that case? Why would that action apply? It's a NPC, it does what it wants, and its actions (or lack thereof) have nothing to do with what you do or do not do. The second part of your statement is far more accurate- there is nothing forcing such creatures (or hirelings, for that matter) to stick around (short of magical compulsions) and fight with you in the first place. However, if they do stick around, such as a trained warhorse might, their status as NPCs does not change, nor do the rules for how they function.


Most DMs wouldn't rule that a random creature is more efficient than the heavily trained Companion of the Ranger, not unless they were also going to house-rule they same benefit to the Ranger and his companion too - anything less than that is basically passive-aggressively telling the player of the Ranger that you do not want him at your game and asking him to leave.
Well, we can't actually know what "most" DMs would or would not do, and not ruling the same way you might is not passive aggressively doing anything, much less telling a Ranger player to leave. As mentioned before, the Ranger animal companion has specific advantages in all important combat areas (HP, AC, attack roll, and damage) which make it far more efficient than any random creature could hope to be. Not requiring an action to advise a NPC on what you think they should do is a very different thing from not requiring an action to tell what is essentially an extension of yourself what to do, with a 100% guarantee it will obey your commands. Of course, even doing that doesn't normally require an action (see all conjure X spells), but hey, I didn't write the rules for the beastmaster.

A DM can have a creature refuse to enter combat all he wants, or have it cower uselessly the whole time it's in combat. It is after all a NPC wholly under his control. Such is his right. But changing communication from explicitly not requiring an action ("Your turn can include a variety of flourishes that require neither your action nor your move. You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn.") to requiring an action, and especially only when communicating with a specific NPC, is not supported by the rules. If you want to make it anything other than a NPC, or change the fundamental way it uses its actions, even going so far as to take them out of DM purview, sure, houserule away. But the rules as written are complete and don't need any such rules, the existing rules cover the situation just fine.