Beastmaster Thought Experiment

[ChelseaNH]

I know, you've been over the beastmaster ground before, but I haven't had a reason to care about. Now my new game has a player with a beastmaster, which he hasn't played before. If I'm going to mess with the class, it should get done at the outset.

D&D doesn't have to model reality, but I find it a useful starting point. So I took a look at commands used for K9 training, and also did a check on falconry. I tried to line up existing commands with the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge and Help actions, with limited success. The main question I had going in is, how does the handler designate a target? And they don't, really. Also, the commands for movement are rather vague.

So, what if moving your companion was hard, but commands were easy? By default, your companion is with you, and you can use a free action to command it. However, it takes an action to move your companion away from you. Possibly you could "attune" your companion to a limited number of friends, so you could say "go to <friend>" as a free action; maybe an additional friend every 2 levels.

What does that do to the power level of the beastmaster archetype?

[RickAllison]

Still doesn't bring it in line with any other classes :smallwink:

[ChelseaNH]

If movement is harder and actions are easier, then the companion becomes less of an extra character and more of a buff to the ranger, which seems consistent with the overall design of 5e.

The presence of an ally would be more advantageous to a melee ranger, since the companion can attack or help against the ranger's opponent. So what if Hunter's Mark made the target a known location? "Harass target" would send the companion to use the help action against a target for a ranged attack or a melee attack with equal ease.

[Addaran]

So, what if moving your companion was hard, but commands were easy? By default, your companion is with you, and you can use a free action to command it. However, it takes an action to move your companion away from you. Possibly you could "attune" your companion to a limited number of friends, so you could say "go to <friend>" as a free action; maybe an additional friend every 2 levels.

What does that do to the power level of the beastmaster archetype?

Not sure for the power level, but seems like a nice solution. Would feel more realistic and deal with the biggest complain about the beast being a robot, needing you to remind it to attack every 6 seconds.

Seems logical that it's easier to just tell hit to attack, come back to you, etc then to tell it to go exactly 15 away, between the boulder and the elf so the hobgoblin's path is blocked.

[Giant2005]

Are you saying it takes a command to move the companion at all, or that it automatically sticks by your side, moving along with you, but takes an action to move away from you?
The former wouldn't really change much, but the latter would break action economy enough to make the BM the most powerful class in the game.
At level 3 and every level after, the BM would inflict more damage per round than every other class unless the companion were to find itself dead. You would need to kill the companion periodically as a balancing mechanic (balanced by sometimes being the most powerful character on the field and sometimes the weakest), and I think having the companion die so often would probably annoy the player more than simply playing the game RAW.
If you want to help him out, do something to make the companion more survivable, not to make it more powerful.

[SMac8988]

Just chimming in, not providing much, but i love the hunters mark idea. Costs a spell and then the pet gets to attack as a free action. And with how squishy the pets are after level 5, it could easily be delt with if the dm needed

[ChelseaNH]

Are you saying it takes a command to move the companion at all, or that it automatically sticks by your side, moving along with you, but takes an action to move away from you?

I was thinking the latter.


At level 3 and every level after, the BM would inflict more damage per round than every other class unless the companion were to find itself dead.

Only if you choose an animal that does a lot of damage. If you choose something like an owl or a raven, you get an extra 1 point. The highest damage looks like 2d4+4 for draft horses or 2d6+1 for giant owl. At 10th level, with the proficiency bonus, that's 2d4+8 or 2d6+5, which averages less than the rogue's 5d6 sneak attack bonus. So remove the proficiency bonus from the companion's damage.

I don't see where rangers get an advantage from an adjacent ally. If you use the flanking rules, you have to take an action to move the companion behind your opponent.

If the companion is such a benefit, then the squishiness seems more like a balance than a penalty.

[PeteNutButter]

I was thinking the latter.
Only if you choose an animal that does a lot of damage. If you choose something like an owl or a raven, you get an extra 1 point. The highest damage looks like 2d4+4 for draft horses or 2d6+1 for giant owl. At 10th level, with the proficiency bonus, that's 2d4+8 or 2d6+5, which averages less than the rogue's 5d6 sneak attack bonus. So remove the proficiency bonus from the companion's damage.
I don't see where rangers get an advantage from an adjacent ally. If you use the flanking rules, you have to take an action to move the companion behind your opponent.
If the companion is such a benefit, then the squishiness seems more like a balance than a penalty.

You just ran into another big annoyance. RAW beast masters can't have their pets be large animals.

Here's a better fix for both:

Take away the proficiency bonuses to the animals stats. Allow the ranger to tame any animal for his pet that a druid (non-moon) of his same level could wildshape into. If the game goes on significantly past 8th level, maybe add CR 2 animals at somewhere around lvl 12-15.

Make it so giving it the attack command is a bonus action (single attack). At level 7 you can tell it to multiattack or extra attack as an action. At level 11 when you do that you can make a single attack as a bonus action.

All in all the damage peaks around brown bear (lvl 8) which will do about a greatsword attack's worth of damage (2d6+4). While that is some damn good use of a bonus action, if the party is properly built they will still out damage the beast master. If the fighter crits or knocks an enemy down he gets his greatsword bonus action attack, or more likely has a polearm and gets to wack someone for 1d4. In either case if he manages to hit he'll have +10 damage from GWM, something the bear will never benefit from. 1d4+14 > 2d6+4... And then if the fighter gets a reaction attack...

At this point the druid in the party can cast a spell that lasts for an hour that will give him the benefit of two CR 1 creatures, that he won't even have to take actions to command. (Like these guys just met and they have a better working relationship than my pet which has been with me since the start!)

And then there is the valor bard who at lvl 10 will put out 4 attacks a round, each with that -5/+10 damage... Or a smiting paladorc who will likely out damage them all if he wants to nova... or a wizard who can toss the right spell and end the fight.

The point is since you can't really buff the beast's damage with feats/ASIs, you have to choose where to balance him. Either good enough to stand with optimized characters or not.

[ChelseaNH]

The point is since you can't really buff the beast's damage with feats/ASIs, you have to choose where to balance him. Either good enough to stand with optimized characters or not.

This all sounds like you're optimizing only for damage. Are there typically other things that the ranger does that an animal companion could help with?

A companion can't be optimized out of the box any more than a character class. The point is not to improve the companion per se, but to use the companion to improve the ranger.

[ChelseaNH]

Version 2.0:

Unless commanded, the companion will remain adjacent to you and will use the Help action in combat. While the companion is adjacent, you can use a free action to command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage or Dodge action. [n.b. "free action" is more expensive than "no action"]

Directing the companion to move requires an action, and the Attack, Dash, Disengage or Dodge commands require a bonus action when the companion is not adjacent to you.

When the companion is within 1000 feet of you, you know instantly when the companion detects a creature, other than your traveling companions, of a type you would consider a threat. If the creature is a favored enemy, you know roughly how many there are (one, two, pack, herd, many).

Hunter's Mark: You can command your companion to move adjacent to the target without using any action, and it will automatically use the Help action on this target.

[SMac8988]

Version 2.0:

Unless commanded, the companion will remain adjacent to you and will use the Help action in combat. While the companion is adjacent, you can use a free action to command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage or Dodge action. [n.b. "free action" is more expensive than "no action"]

Directing the companion to move requires an action, and the Attack, Dash, Disengage or Dodge commands require a bonus action when the companion is not adjacent to you.

When the companion is within 1000 feet of you, you know instantly when the companion detects a creature, other than your traveling companions, of a type you would consider a threat. If the creature is a favored enemy, you know roughly how many there are (one, two, pack, herd, many).

Hunter's Mark: You can command your companion to move adjacent to the target without using any action, and it will automatically use the Help action on this target.

I really like this, helps to remove the robotic feel of the pet, and gives the subclass a minor buff. Seems reasonable and not over powered. I assume you mean ATTACK action in hunters mark, not help though?

[Giant2005]

Unless commanded, the companion will remain adjacent to you and will use the Help action in combat. While the companion is adjacent, you can use a free action to command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage or Dodge action. [n.b. "free action" is more expensive than "no action"]

What do you actually mean by a Free Action? That isn't something that exists in 5e.
When people refer to free actions, I always thought that meant something they could do at-will without expending anything, which would be exactly as expensive as "no action", but that last statement of yours implies some kind of cost. Are you referring to using your object interaction?

Either way, it doesn't really matter. The passive Help Action thing is a good idea and you might even want to extend that into giving the Ranger's attacks a free knockdown rider or grapple rider or something along those lines if the companion has them (having the companion automatically use them instead of attacking when ordered to).
However, having the companion attack without costing the Ranger an attack of his own breaks the game. Under the normal system, BM Rangers have top of the line DPR - having that extra damage come without genuine sacrifice increases that top of the line DPR to broken level DPR.

[Vogonjeltz]

Only if you choose an animal that does a lot of damage. If you choose something like an owl or a raven, you get an extra 1 point. The highest damage looks like 2d4+4 for draft horses or 2d6+1 for giant owl. At 10th level, with the proficiency bonus, that's 2d4+8 or 2d6+5, which averages less than the rogue's 5d6 sneak attack bonus. So remove the proficiency bonus from the companion's damage.

I don't see where rangers get an advantage from an adjacent ally. If you use the flanking rules, you have to take an action to move the companion behind your opponent.

If the companion is such a benefit, then the squishiness seems more like a balance than a penalty.

Rogue's sneak attack is situational and the Rogue can't necessarily pick their targets if they want the bonus; only some targets will have an adjacent opponent, only some targets will the rogue have advantage on the roll, etc....

I wouldn't require an action to move, one of the fun benefits of the pet is you can position it such that an opponent who wants to get at someone else has to move out of the pets reach, allowing for an opportunity attack using the snake's reaction. Also fun is that the Constrictor Snake can grapple and restrain on that attack, preventing the opponent from getting away and granting advantage to attacks. The snake can also release the target at anytime requiring no action at all.

Requiring the action to move would ruin that benefit (as well as the later class benefits). Overall, this looks more like a nerf than a benefit.

[ChelseaNH]

I really like this, helps to remove the robotic feel of the pet, and gives the subclass a minor buff. Seems reasonable and not over powered. I assume you mean ATTACK action in hunters mark, not help though?

Hunter's Mark only gives a 1d6 damage bonus, so I was thinking an automatic attack might be too much.


What do you actually mean by a Free Action? That isn't something that exists in 5e.

I was thinking of the object interactions; you get one for "free" and then you have to use an action to do something else.


However, having the companion attack without costing the Ranger an attack of his own breaks the game. Under the normal system, BM Rangers have top of the line DPR - having that extra damage come without genuine sacrifice increases that top of the line DPR to broken level DPR.

I've been going back and forth about charging a bonus action, but as for an attack, I'm not convinced it's an upgrade to trade one of your attacks for your companion's attack. Also, I think about withdrawing from a fight -- the ranger couldn't disengage at the same time as the companion, which bothers me.

[Tanarii]

but as for an attack, I'm not convinced it's an upgrade to trade one of your attacks for your companion's attack. for S&B Ranger or Archery Ranger, your companion generally does more damage than you do as a Ranger for base damage (ie before hunters mark, which costs resources). But most important it has a chance to prone the target.

IMO beastmaster flat out isn't designed to use in conjunction with TWF, or for massive damage. It's designed for flexibility in terms of positioning (ie battlefield control, including OAs), plus potential status effect (primarily prone). If you remove the free movement of the companion and replace it with a damage boost, you've nerfed its primary purpose. (Note that using Ensnaring Stike instead of Hunters Mark also plays to its strengths)

[Kane0]

Could just make it commandable as a bonus action. Competes with hunters mark, swift quiver and TWF but theyre all sources if extra damage, same as your beast.
Probably want to allow large beasts at some point too, and increase their HP just a touch.

[djreynolds]

I feel everyone's pain, IMO, you have to see beastmaster from a different angle. The day of a huge bear tank is over, and it is sad.

Exploration Awesome
The idea of a getting a new beast that is of that specific terrain that you are now is neat, I'm in the swamp so I get a frog. I'm on the steppes and I train a hawk. I mean the idea is neat to have the best scouting companion available for the adventure.

Combat
The giant owl isn't terrible, fly-by is a great source of advantage for sharp shooter. The thing is the HP of the beast. And is this ranger any good when his beast dies. That's the kicker, you cannot readily replace it.

Wolf is good if you are strength based polearm master, but when facing a giant he's just fodder for a single attack and you may get hit with a flying dead wolf.

It just doesn't scale enough to make it worth it at a high level, and hunter's mark is almost lost. I feel like multiclassing to rogue or cleric or even fighter after 8th level.

I kinda want something to make up if I choose not to use the beast in combat or it dies.

[ChelseaNH]

IMO beastmaster flat out isn't designed to use in conjunction with TWF, or for massive damage. It's designed for flexibility in terms of positioning (ie battlefield control, including OAs), plus potential status effect (primarily prone).

My starting point was the description of the ranger as a defender of the frontier. Based on that, I'm thinking about the companion vis-a-vis the ranger, rather than the companion vis-a-vis the party.

[krugaan]

Beastmaster should be more like the Beastmaster (ala the 1980's movie)... master of more than one beast. An eagle, a pair of ferrets ... uh, whatever else he had. At least it would give him a bit more utility to have scouts as well as tanking pets.

[djreynolds]

Beastmaster should be more like the Beastmaster (ala the 1980's movie)... master of more than one beast. An eagle, a pair of ferrets ... uh, whatever else he had. At least it would give him a bit more utility to have scouts as well as tanking pets.

Exactly, he should get more than one. That is cool.

What you have to ask yourself is, if your pet is dead... are you still good? The ranger by itself is okay, obviously not as good as the hunter, but he is still a very good archer with 2 attacks and spells.

So if you are deciding to take the beast master archetype, ask yourself do you feel at level 12 you are a viable PC, you still have a maxed dex and sharp shooter and hunter's mark, you have 2 attacks and some good spells. If that is okay, then play one

[SouthpawSoldier]

I kind of have a thing for the Ranger; I've made a point to seek out homebrew (I've collected plenty of other material, but I am quickest on the Ranger).

This is my Google Drive folder dedicated to different versions of the Ranger. (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0ByP4KKDYWVytNkhxXzBxY25Takk&usp=sharing) They all have interesting takes and adjustments. Well worth skimming for ideas. Some scale the Pet's CR based on Ranger Level, some make spells like Hunter's Mark a non-magical class feature; loads of changes. All were obtained free, and are kosher to share. All have author(s)' credits within; I could only wish to have this talent for writing.

Almost forgot; I gained this one tonight: link to DMs Guild (http://www.dmsguild.com/product/177893/Be-what-you-want-Beast-Master) that I'm especially excited about; author said it was inspired by Robin Hobb's Farseer trilogy, which is even more dear to me than Tolkien's works, and I'm named for the latter. Author also mentioned influence from wargs (Game of Thrones, not Tolkien).

There's also a Ranger version in the Martialist's Handbook, a fantastic work with new features for all classes; here's the link to my copy (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByP4KKDYWVytMUtqeXlMRTBDLUU/view?usp=sharing), though it may have been updated and changed since.

There's also been a pair of Unearthed Arcana features that focus on the Ranger as well.

Edit to add: almost forgot; a Google drive tracking revisions in Ranger rewrites from another thread; work being done by simonb350. (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BzX2E37oeheAeEJBdVQ5NUc4dms&usp=sharing)

Here's the discussion thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?480825-Modified-Ranger-Base-Class-and-Archetypes

[MrStabby]

If people are worried about the BM out-damaging other classes with a pet under these revised rules then maybe put a requirement in that the BM has to have a hand free to gesture to the pet to give the command? Taking away two handed weapons, two weapon fighting, sword and shield etc. would slightly lower ranger maximum damage with a pet.

Another potential route is that the pet takes the same action as you and tries to stay within 10 ft of you. It will attack if you attack, dash if you dash, hide if you hide.... If it attacks it will attack the same target after you. This means average damage is lower as if you kill something your pet cannot attack and the ranger will always miss out on any conditions the pet imposes on the target till his next turn. It also has the cost of reduced flexibility but the benefit of no action required.

Finally, you could allow a successful animal handling check (Cha) vs DC10+CR of pet to allow the pet to be commanded for free. A boost at all levels but especially at higher levels as proficiency bonus rises - the area where I feel the BM drops off. The downside is an extra check every turn slows the game down (but if you were worried about slowing the game down you wouldn't be playing a class that basically brings an NPC to the table with it).

[ChelseaNH]

Beastmaster should be more like the Beastmaster (ala the 1980's movie)... master of more than one beast. An eagle, a pair of ferrets ... uh, whatever else he had. At least it would give him a bit more utility to have scouts as well as tanking pets.

Point 1: Cognitive load. If a beastmaster had multiple companions, I'd allow only one to be active at a time. Two, if the ranger gave up all actions and just directed them.

Point 2: You have a player with a bunch of characters/action points, which will inevitably slow down the game.

Point 3: A companion's hit points are slightly above average for d6 and slightly below average for d8. Would you consider any of the classes with d6 or d8 hit dice for a tank role? My goal is not to create a two-fighters-for-the-price-of-one class.


Taking away two handed weapons, two weapon fighting, sword and shield etc. would slightly lower ranger maximum damage with a pet.

You've also eliminated archery. How many fighting styles are left?


you could allow a successful animal handling check (Cha) vs DC10+CR of pet to allow the pet to be commanded for free

Interesting idea, although yes, a little tiresome. This also seems to assume that the CR can go above 1/4; otherwise, it's a straight DC 11 check.

[krugaan]

Point 1: Cognitive load. If a beastmaster had multiple companions, I'd allow only one to be active at a time. Two, if the ranger gave up all actions and just directed them.

Point 2: You have a player with a bunch of characters/action points, which will inevitably slow down the game.

Point 3: A companion's hit points are slightly above average for d6 and slightly below average for d8. Would you consider any of the classes with d6 or d8 hit dice for a tank role? My goal is not to create a two-fighters-for-the-price-of-one class.


1) bonus action to direct, replace one attack, isn't that how it works right now? the only difference is you might have one or two more options and maybe (if the DM allows it) extra action economy (sort of like concentration, for pets).

2) I was sort of envisioning 1/2/3/4 pets at 1/5/11/17, kind of like cantrip leveling, that doesn't seem particularly excessive.

3) I meant tanking as a broad category of pet, not as a replacement for actual player tanks.