Large Beast Companion

[PoeticDwarf]

I love the BM archtype of the ranger, but why you can't have large animals. Our DM ignores the rule because he doesn't see a reason.

I mean, a halfling (and halflings make good rangers) can ride a medium beast, that can't be the reason. Anyone has an idea?

[Ninja_Prawn]

Well, large creatures have a number of natural advantages. Firstly, they take up four squares on a grid, which means they can threaten 12 squares instead of 8 and generally control more of the battlefield, which is one of the major uses for an animal companion. Second, it feels wrong fluff-wise to have an animal companion that's bigger than you are. I can't see that working in my head (small creatures get away with it because everything they do is inherently funny). Thirdly, you can buy riding animals if you want them. Three of the animals that your change allows are Camel, Draft Horse and Riding Horse, all of which should be available to buy/rent.

Finally, I think the specific case of the Giant Owl tips the balance. It has almost-human intelligence, an alignment and it can talk. None of the other BM companions have any of those.

[Demonic Spoon]

I'd bet that it's to avoid a newbie trap - newbie picks a large beast, then the party goes into a narrow dungeon and has to leave the beast outside - newbie is unhappy because they have to leave their class feature outside.

[PoeticDwarf]

Well, large creatures have a number of natural advantages. Firstly, they take up four squares on a grid, which means they can threaten 12 squares instead of 8 and generally control more of the battlefield, which is one of the major uses for an animal companion. Second, it feels wrong fluff-wise to have an animal companion that's bigger than you are. I can't see that working in my head (small creatures get away with it because everything they do is inherently funny). Thirdly, you can buy riding animals if you want them. Three of the animals that your change allows are Camel, Draft Horse and Riding Horse, all of which should be available to buy/rent.

Finally, I think the specific case of the Giant Owl tips the balance. It has almost-human intelligence, an alignment and it can talk. None of the other BM companions have any of those.

First sounds logical for me, I don't use my beast for control of the battlefield but I understand. I don't understand the second thing, "all things small creatures do are funny", and "it feels wrong fluff-wise" are sounding strange for me. The third, you can also buy a mastiff and a halfling can ride a mastiff, and you can buy ponnys and a halfling can ride them too.

[PoeticDwarf]

I'd bet that it's to avoid a newbie trap - newbie picks a large beast, then the party goes into a narrow dungeon and has to leave the beast outside - newbie is unhappy because they have to leave their class feature outside.

Could be possible, but that is basing on the campaign setting, the DM can explain there are going to be narrow dungeons.

[JackPhoenix]

First sounds logical for me, I don't use my beast for control of the battlefield but I understand. I don't understand the second thing, "all things small creatures do are funny", and "it feels wrong fluff-wise" are sounding strange for me. The third, you can also buy a mastiff and a halfling can ride a mastiff, and you can buy ponnys and a halfling can ride them too.

Most races are medium-sized. If rangers were limited to beast of their size or smaller, halfling and gnome beastmasters would be pretty much unplayable. How many decent small beasts are there? Baboon, badger, bat, blood hawk, cat, crab, eagle, flying snake, frog, giant centipede, giant fire beetle, giant rat, hawk, jackal, lizard, octopus, owl, poisonous snake, quipper, rat, raven, scorpion, seahorse, spider, weasel... only about 3 of them have any use in combat, and that's because they are poisonous.

[TheOOB]

5th ed has very carefully designed math, and they just didn't design the math of the ranger to work with large beasts. Considering how tough they can get, it's understandable.

[MaxWilson]

I love the BM archtype of the ranger, but why you can't have large animals. Our DM ignores the rule because he doesn't see a reason.

I mean, a halfling (and halflings make good rangers) can ride a medium beast, that can't be the reason. Anyone has an idea?

Beats me. Personally I think a bear would be a terrifically iconic animal companion (Chewbacca!), and so would a lion, but the beastmaster disallows both of those due to size and CR. A cobra or flying snake works pretty well though--I love the thought of an 80 HP, AC 20 Flying Snake doing a flyby at 2x +12 for 3d4 + 7 points of damage every turn. It's not super powerful but compared to a normal flying snake with 5 HP it is the King of the Snakes.

Anyway, if one of my players wanted a bear, I'd let him have one. That is, I'd lobby the table for a house rule, and with two of us already in favor, the motion would almost certainly carry the day and get enacted.

[PoeticDwarf]

Most races are medium-sized. If rangers were limited to beast of their size or smaller, halfling and gnome beastmasters would be pretty much unplayable. How many decent small beasts are there? Baboon, badger, bat, blood hawk, cat, crab, eagle, flying snake, frog, giant centipede, giant fire beetle, giant rat, hawk, jackal, lizard, octopus, owl, poisonous snake, quipper, rat, raven, scorpion, seahorse, spider, weasel... only about 3 of them have any use in combat, and that's because they are poisonous.

I know, but why not a large beast, I don't see the fluff-wise problem, I don't say they have to ban medium animals but that they have to get large ones.