Beastmaster companion reactions

[Nonah_Me]

Does a beastmaster's companion get its own reaction? Could you park your animal companion next to a target, and if the target moves away, it takes an attack of opportunity?

[Tanarii]

Absolutely. It's one of the major benefits of being a beastmaster. You can be in two places at once for OAs, or trap a creature between you and it, or block twice the frontage.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Absolutely. It's one of the major benefits of being a beastmaster. You can be in two places at once for OAs, or trap a creature between you and it, or block twice the frontage.

It would be if the beast wasn't so squishy. Again they took the bad 4a mechanics (of a cool class convept) and placed them into 5e.

The beast master ranger was bad in 4e and for almost the exact same reasons as the 5e version.

*sigh*

So close yet so far away.

[Tanarii]

It's a little squishy, but not that bad. Bit more than half the hit points of the Ranger, but AC about the same or even higher with Barding & Prof bonus. If you're going front line & so is your beast, take the sentinel feat to give it some added protection. Or park it near your Protection tank.

Personally I'm a fan of skirting around the edges of a fight with my beast, rotating my Wolf and myself in and out of the front lines and to back to protect squishes as needed and depending on our health. We stick together or split up, whichever makes most sense. That's what a Ranger is all about anyway IMO ... mobility and options. We're both high AC (I usually S&B), my Wolf is usually our offense of the two of us. Ensnaring Strike is my go-to spell for battlefield control and disrupting the enemy, and I have Sentinel to discourage enemies from attacking my Wolf too often if it's near me.

Personally I think it was done just about right. Just like the 4e BM, which I also loved. Both are effective at doing what they're supposed to do. I think the biggest mistake I see people making in both editions is trying to be a DPR archery machine themselves, and expecting the pet to tank out front.

[djreynolds]

In fact, I stole Mr. Tanarii's idea he gave me. I let my beast attack and I go strength with sentinel and pole arm master and it works. I even initially dipped fighter for protection and had sentinel but we got to change up at 5th, and decided that I plenty of hits with sentinel and polearm master. Everyone wants to kill my wolf, and I just make them pay when they try. Just remember that hunter's mark will not be useful for you, and keep cure wounds available.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It's a little squishy, but not that bad. Bit more than half the hit points of the Ranger, but AC about the same or even higher with Barding & Prof bonus. If you're going front line & so is your beast, take the sentinel feat to give it some added protection. Or park it near your Protection tank.

Personally I'm a fan of skirting around the edges of a fight with my beast, rotating my Wolf and myself in and out of the front lines and to back to protect squishes as needed and depending on our health. We stick together or split up, whichever makes most sense. That's what a Ranger is all about anyway IMO ... mobility and options. We're both high AC (I usually S&B), my Wolf is usually our offense of the two of us. Ensnaring Strike is my go-to spell for battlefield control and disrupting the enemy, and I have Sentinel to discourage enemies from attacking my Wolf too often if it's near me.

Personally I think it was done just about right. Just like the 4e BM, which I also loved. Both are effective at doing what they're supposed to do. I think the biggest mistake I see people making in both editions is trying to be a DPR archery machine themselves, and expecting the pet to tank out front.

With a nice DM, anything is possible.

The biggest problem is that martials don't get the utility of casters, even partial martials like the ranger, so they are expected to keep up with damage. Since damage is really all martials and partial martials have. So if the BM doesn't keep up with damage and doesn't have utility... It is falling behind.

Having about the same utility as a martial and nowhere near the DPR really hurts the BM Ranger.

Oh, and once you get to mid levels a lot of those OA aren't going to be worth anything. OA damage, unless you have a good source of extra damage like the rogue, just isn't worth worrying about and creature know they are tough enough to take a few hits and keep moving through.

I think where they went wrong is that instead of having ranger specific beast companions they have you pick from normal animals. Of they actually beefed up the animal companion it wouldn't be too bad.

Easy_Lee and some others on here had a huge discussion on BM rangers and how to fix them, without the need for the PCs to optimize.

Of you have a nice DM or are in a low OP game, BM can work fine, but if not then you will see your allies outshine you in almost every area. The BM Ranger is the new "Jack of all trades, master of none" in a game that you need to be a master of something I order to keep up with the game.

[DanyBallon]

With a nice DM, anything is possible.

The biggest problem is that martials don't get the utility of casters, even partial martials like the ranger, so they are expected to keep up with damage. Since damage is really all martials and partial martials have. So if the BM doesn't keep up with damage and doesn't have utility... It is falling behind.

Having about the same utility as a martial and nowhere near the DPR really hurts the BM Ranger.

Oh, and once you get to mid levels a lot of those OA aren't going to be worth anything. OA damage, unless you have a good source of extra damage like the rogue, just isn't worth worrying about and creature know they are tough enough to take a few hits and keep moving through.

I think where they went wrong is that instead of having ranger specific beast companions they have you pick from normal animals. Of they actually beefed up the animal companion it wouldn't be too bad.

Easy_Lee and some others on here had a huge discussion on BM rangers and how to fix them, without the need for the PCs to optimize.

Of you have a nice DM or are in a low OP game, BM can work fine, but if not then you will see your allies outshine you in almost every area. The BM Ranger is the new "Jack of all trades, master of none" in a game that you need to be a master of something I order to keep up with the game.

BM ranger DPR isn't as bad as you say. If I remember well Krix's DPR sheet showed up that it was doing fine. Not as effective as a built with GWM+PAM, but still can be an effective addition to fight.

But as you said in a heavy OP oriented game they won't hold up their ground, but 5e isn't just heavy OP game either.

[Tanarii]

With a nice DM, anything is possible.I don't play with nice DMs.


The biggest problem is that martials don't get the utility of casters, even partial martials like the ranger, so they are expected to keep up with damage. Since damage is really all martials and partial martials have. So if the BM doesn't keep up with damage and doesn't have utility... It is falling behind.Rangers bring tons of utility to the table, including in-combat flexibility. That's the entire point. If you think all they are supposed to do is damage, that's your problem, but it isn't one for me. Not that BM damage is that much worse.


Oh, and once you get to mid levels a lot of those OA aren't going to be worth anything. OA damage, unless you have a good source of extra damage like the rogue, just isn't worth worrying about and creature know they are tough enough to take a few hits and keep moving through.OAs are entire extra attack. BMs get two. Weren't you just complaining about lack of DPR? Be consistent. Plus many beasts get special effects on hit, such as knockdown or grapple.



BMs don't need much fixing. They just need players that understand other ways to do what a Ranger does best, instead of having fixation on DPR.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

BM ranger DPR isn't as bad as you say. If I remember well Krix's DPR sheet showed up that it was doing fine. Not as effective as a built with GWM+PAM, but still can be an effective addition to fight.

But as you said in a heavy OP oriented game they won't hold up their ground, but 5e isn't just heavy OP game either.

Specific builds that need alternative rules and be at least... Level 7 or 11 (forget which one). The errata made the BM's companion badger suck more. You need to optimize the BM or you fall behind. Almost everyone else has a higher floor than the BM Ranger as they get all the things to fill their role (even if their role is to just do damage).

The BM Ranger isn't trash like the weapon master feat but it isn't good either. Making players jump through hoops (specific builds, mild to high optimization) is just plain mean. Especially when there has been plenty of BM Ranger types made by jon-professionals, and professionals, that this iteration of the Beast Master is a borderline joke.

Side Note: I would say that you need to optimize more in 5e than you did in 3e or 4e. Not to keep up with the game, no, but to keep up with your team mates.

That's the worst kind of optimization. When you can handle yourself and you feel awesome, only for everyone around you to show you how little you have.

In 3e the game needed you to optimize if you were certain blades to keep up with not just your allies but with the game itself. That made you feel like you had an impossible goal and dispute that impossible goal you met it. Yeah your allies were better but you "beat" the system. In 5e you start off beating the game, so to speak, but so does your allies and you can be forgotten as the 6th member.

4e, no optimization was needed at all. It was nice and up until they fixed the math you kinda needed one offensive feat and one defensive feat (+1/2/3 to attacks and NADs) but that wasn't game breaking at all to not give those away for free.

My actions and choices should make my character suck, not the game mechanics.

[DanyBallon]

Specific builds that need alternative rules and be at least... Level 7 or 11 (forget which one). The errata made the BM's companion badger suck more. You need to optimize the BM or you fall behind. Almost everyone else has a higher floor than the BM Ranger as they get all the things to fill their role (even if their role is to just do damage).

The BM Ranger isn't trash like the weapon master feat but it isn't good either. Making players jump through hoops (specific builds, mild to high optimization) is just plain mean. Especially when there has been plenty of BM Ranger types made by jon-professionals, and professionals, that this iteration of the Beast Master is a borderline joke.

Side Note: I would say that you need to optimize more in 5e than you did in 3e or 4e. Not to keep up with the game, no, but to keep up with your team mates.

That's the worst kind of optimization. When you can handle yourself and you feel awesome, only for everyone around you to show you how little you have.

In 3e the game needed you to optimize if you were certain blades to keep up with not just your allies but with the game itself. That made you feel like you had an impossible goal and dispute that impossible goal you met it. Yeah your allies were better but you "beat" the system. In 5e you start off beating the game, so to speak, but so does your allies and you can be forgotten as the 6th member.

4e, no optimization was needed at all. It was nice and up until they fixed the math you kinda needed one offensive feat and one defensive feat (+1/2/3 to attacks and NADs) but that wasn't game breaking at all to not give those away for free.

My actions and choices should make my character suck, not the game mechanics.

On the contrary, 5e doesn't requires you to have an optimized build at all! The only times an unoptimized build will feel weaker if it's competing with an other similar more optimized build. i.e a BM ranger competing with a GWM+PAM Barb for the position of primary damage dealer. But in a party where the BM Ranger is the only martial, he will still be the most effective character at dealing damage.

D&D 5e, isn't about being better than your fellow party member, it's about teaming up to adventure together and have fun. Sure if at your table every character try to be the one that outshine the others, you'll need a full optimized build to keep up, but it's not because it's the standard at your table that it should be for everyone else. As I've said before D&D 5e is designed to suit a large variety of playstyle.

[Tanarii]

On the contrary, 5e doesn't requires you to have an optimized build at all!
This. 5e requires the least optimization of any edition since WotC took over the helm.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

This. 5e requires the least optimization of any edition since WotC took over the helm.

4E says otherwise.

The optimization floor was high enough that you didn't need to optimize. They even put in inherent bonuses to remove the need for magic items (which I think was whatblead to 5e going away from magic item need...).

The fact that you could focus on any ability scores and work just fine in almost any role says a lot too. You didn't have to optimize your ability score choices as much since they came in pairs.

5e does a lot of good stuff but optimization floor isn't as good as it could be.

A good example is the Fighter. In order to do something other than "move and attack" you have to jump through hoops (feats) or lower your DPR significantly (which is what a fighter is for, high weapon DPR). So in order to be more than a move n hit type you have to gimp yourself at the same time... Which leads to optimization so you can keep up with your peers.

In 4e, right out of the gate, you can be that move and hit dude or you can, while staying relevant and useful, not be that move n hit guy. You don't have to optimize at all, just pick a basic option and go with it.

Side Note:

I view optimization like I do videogame grinding. You shouldn't need it to play the game. It's a waste of time and energy to jump through the hoops in order to progress the story. However it should be in the game if that is what you like to do, but people shouldn't be punished because they don't want to optimize.

[DanyBallon]

4E says otherwise.

The optimization floor was high enough that you didn't need to optimize. They even put in inherent bonuses to remove the need for magic items (which I think was whatblead to 5e going away from magic item need...).

The fact that you could focus on any ability scores and work just fine in almost any role says a lot too. You didn't have to optimize your ability score choices as much since they came in pairs.

5e does a lot of good stuff but optimization floor isn't as good as it could be.

A good example is the Fighter. In order to do something other than "move and attack" you have to jump through hoops (feats) or lower your DPR significantly (which is what a fighter is for, high weapon DPR). So in order to be more than a move n hit type you have to gimp yourself at the same time... Which leads to optimization so you can keep up with your peers.

In 4e, right out of the gate, you can be that move and hit dude or you can, while staying relevant and useful, not be that move n hit guy. You don't have to optimize at all, just pick a basic option and go with it.

Side Note:

I view optimization like I do videogame grinding. You shouldn't need it to play the game. It's a waste of time and energy to jump through the hoops in order to progress the story. However it should be in the game if that is what you like to do, but people shouldn't be punished because they don't want to optimize.

Fighther are meant to be the frontline damage dealer in a typical 4 man party (martial, skilled, healer, and magic-user) and are doing pretty well without feat and maxed out main ability score. Background let him have skill out of what the class allow. Feats allow the fighter to either specialized or diversified its abilities. Same goes for ASI, one could max out its main ability score to be more specialized, or, pump other abilities to diversify its skills (skills check are ability check after all)

So the fighter in your example don't need to "jump through loops" to be effective in and out of combat. Backgrounds and ASI already allow this.

As for your allusion to grinding, usually you need grinding for two reason, either to boost yourself in order to complete the game as piece of cake and/or to be able to compete with other that used grinding. This often lead to game designer to up the challenge, leading to more grinding, and again bigger challenge, up to the moment a player that didn't want to grind must do so if he want to enjoy the game.

5e don't require optimisation at all, if you can keep in check optimiser before hand, by letting them understand that they don't need to be better than anyone else (you just need to be good in the role you fulfill in the party), you may just prevent that power creep from even starting.

[Tanarii]

4E says otherwise.hahahahaha

Seriously, that's really an absurd statement.

5e may eventually reach the level of required optimization that 4e reached after 3 PHBs and a mess of splatbooks, but that's not going to happen any time soon at the rate their releasing new content.

[djreynolds]

To play a beastmaster you must set aside the other D&D installments and just see it as different. You no longer have a mini-tank anymore.

Try to see yourself as that guy on a man hunt with a blood hound, or a police man with a K9. The beast can't really get to far, and is no longer an independent companion, it is basically a weapon you wield, a +2 Doberman. You're not losing an attack, just replacing weapons.

Now the idea, that someone else showed me here on the forum, was to use the beast to attack and draw agro, remember at fifth level you have two attacks, and a reaction and a bonus action. Your beast, not a companion you are life long buddies with, stays close to you like a guard dog with his master. He can have one attack, and you can still strike as well at 5th level, and twice if two weapon fighting with an off hand strike. But better yet, by keeping him close and selecting the right feats, such as sentinel or pole arm master, you can make enemies pay for trying to hit your beast. The wolf also gets advantage with you or an ally, so you can send him off to attack the guy striking out at an ally. Keep some cure wound spells available for your beast. Rangers are not stuck as dexterity based characters anymore, you can be strength based and have a decent dexterity for stealth and medium armor. You can even multiclass with fighter for heavy armor and a fighting style and let everyone else stealth if you want. And the protection style becomes also a good way with a shield to keep your weapon working.

And you can change out weapons, you can have a certain beast for certain terrain. Giant Owl, AFB, can harass enemy, its not a waste of an attack, just see it like a wizard casting blur for his action, is that a waste, no.

[Kane0]

Plan B: Use your Beast as your mount. If possible add in the mounted combatant feat and 3+ levels of UA Cavalier fighter. Profit.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

hahahahaha

Seriously, that's really an absurd statement.

5e may eventually reach the level of required optimization that 4e reached after 3 PHBs and a mess of splatbooks, but that's not going to happen any time soon at the rate their releasing new content.

4E has the highest optimization floor of any D&D edition, anyone who has actually played the game and not just read about it would know this.

Core 5e has a higher floor than core 3e, yes, but it's still pitiful compared to 4e (even without splat). The fact that you have to deal with 6 saves is just the tip of the 5e optimization iceberg.

Optimization Floors (lowest to highest)
3e, 5e, 4e

Optimization Ceilings (lowest to highest)
5e, 4e (epic destinies), 3e (tier 1 and 2, plus other broken stuff).

[JackPhoenix]

4E has the highest optimization floor of any D&D edition, anyone who has actually played the game and not just read about it would know this.

Core 5e has a higher floor than core 3e, yes, but it's still pitiful compared to 4e (even without splat). The fact that you have to deal with 6 saves is just the tip of the 5e optimization iceberg.

Optimization Floors (lowest to highest)
3e, 5e, 4e

Optimization Ceilings (lowest to highest)
5e, 4e (epic destinies), 3e (tier 1 and 2, plus other broken stuff).

Can you explain what do you mean by optimization floor and ceiling for the people who have no idea what are you talking about? (well, for me)

[Nonah_Me]

Plan B: Use your Beast as your mount. If possible add in the mounted combatant feat and 3+ levels of UA Cavalier fighter. Profit.

I actually do plan on doing this as a halfling two-weapon fighting ranger X / rogue 2, riding a mastiff. I won't get Cunning Action online until 7, but my plan is to use hit and run tactics when I need to (via bonus disengage) to dance in and out of a battle, jumping off my mastiff if I need to hold the line or take up 10 feet of space, etc. I know it's not super optimal, but I'm playing in a game with a Regular Human Paladin of Devotion (who is only now jumping into 5e, why did he pick paladin geeze), a wood elf fighter using a refluffed quarterstaff as a double bladed sword, an evoker gnome (our best RP'er) and a Dragonborn Bard who belly dances and doesn't have a single attack cantrip.

Optimization kind of flew out the window. I think Fletch, my character, will be fun, though! High Dex so I can use ranged attacks when I need to. I'm thinking about picking up Crossbow Expert to get rid of the loading property of heavy crossbows, cause I've always liked crossbows over long or short bows.

[Zalabim]

Bear in mind once you reach Ranger 7 you could order your mount to Disengage as a bonus action anyway, which is what you'd have to use to avoid OAs while mounted. Cunning action would only help when you're unmounted.

[djreynolds]

Bear in mind once you reach Ranger 7 you could order your mount to Disengage as a bonus action anyway, which is what you'd have to use to avoid OAs while mounted. Cunning action would only help when you're unmounted.

Could a mounted warrior, a beast master upon his beast, attack himself yet his beast is taking the dodge action?

[Nonah_Me]

Bear in mind once you reach Ranger 7 you could order your mount to Disengage as a bonus action anyway, which is what you'd have to use to avoid OAs while mounted. Cunning action would only help when you're unmounted.

Hmm, good point. Thanks, I hadn't considered that.

[Tanarii]

Using Rogue Cunning action to Disengage when mounted wouldn't do any good, as the mount would still provoke an OA if it moved out of range.


Bear in mind once you reach Ranger 7 you could order your mount to Disengage as a bonus action anyway, which is what you'd have to use to avoid OAs while mounted. Cunning action would only help when you're unmounted.Interesting. Non-companion mounts can always use their action to Dodge, Disengage, or Dash. Ranger Companion mounts can only do it after level 7, and it costs your bonus action. They're objectively worse mounts.

[EvilAnagram]

snip

4e has a very high optimization floor in my extensive experience. Creating and advancing characters became hours-long affairs of carefully judging every option, squeezing out any benefit I could to make my character more effective. And that was just in Heroic. By upper Paragon I could easily find myself paralyzed with options.

In 5e, on the other hand, boosting your primary and secondary stats to a respectable level is usually enough. I'm running a game in which multiple players took weaker options because they felt like cool characters, and it works fine. And my games tend to be pretty challenging. 5e simply has very little optimizing outside of ridiculous, feat-intensive builds.


Interesting. Non-companion mounts can always use their action to Dodge, Disengage, or Dash. Ranger Companion mounts can only do it after level 7, and it costs your bonus action. They're objectively worse mounts.
They would be if their abilities didn't make up for it. Zoom in, Giant Poisonous Snake bite followed by an attack by you, bonus action move out. Having a beast that's a capable combatant makes action economy much more important than when you have a donkey.

[Tanarii]

They would be if their abilities didn't make up for it. Zoom in, Giant Poisonous Snake bite followed by an attack by you, bonus action move out. Having a beast that's a capable combatant makes action economy much more important than when you have a donkey.
That was already possible without using the companion as a mount. You'd have independent movement too, so you could move from and to different locations.

The advantage of using your companion as a mount seems to be solely the Mounted Combat feat. The trade off compared to a unmounted companion is less mobility. The tradeoff compared to a non-companion mount is you have to wait to level 7 to Dash, Dodge & Disengage, and after level 7 is still costs the PCs bonus action and the companion can't attack.