How to unsuckify the Beastmaster Ranger

[Iguanodon]

I have an idea for a Beast Master (pure theorycrafting, not for a specific game) and am looking for some feedback. My goal here was to avoid the pitfalls that most players fall into with with archetype. Here it is:

Beast companions often come with a huge logistical cost: They piss of NPCs, they fail stealth checks, they die and make you sad. This concept does away with all of that garbage.

The steps:

Establish your character as a druid-type nature worshipper (or maybe more like a totem barbarian).
Reach level 3. Select Beast Master as archetype.
No matter what environment you are in (even the middle of the city) during your next rest, sit down and meditate, attuning with nearby beasts. Your beast companion will be a swarm of a type depending on your environment: Underdark->bats, urban->rats, forest/badlands->ravens. Swarm of Ravens is the best of the CR 1/4 swarm monsters.
Don't worry about healing your companions or preserving their life at all. Let them die all the time, and play it in character as a "circle of life" kind of deal. If you stick with swarm companions, they can't heal anyway. You'll most likely be reattuning to a new swarm after every combat encounter.


Notes:

The ranger is a fusion of a martial class and the druid. The hunter is more like the fighter, while the beast master is more like the druid; it is NOT the "pet class."
Swarms are not OP; they are balanced according to CR and also cannot heal. If your DM says they are OP then they are flat out wrong. If your DM says that attuning to a swarm is unrealistic, cite your status as a nature-communing outlander follower of the Old Faith. You might have to, for balance reasons, concede that your swarm loses attunement with you if it splits up (this is most relevant for attuned Raven Swarms).
The only advantages of a swarm are its ability to fit into small spaces (which attuning to a single tiny beast can already do) and its damage resistances.
There are rats everywhere, so you should never want for a swarm to attune to. There are birds everywhere, too; since raven swarm is the best swarm, maybe you can get your DM to let your use a reskinned version made of other types of birds (read: chicken swarm).
If you need to have a larger single beast companion for some reason, you are still able to attune to one. Just make sure to kill it off quickly to avoid worldly attachments.
When you're in town and your companion is causing trouble (tracking dirt into the king's hall, etc.) you can just deattune and let them go. Bonus points if you let a panther loose in a crowded marketplace.


I think with this sort of character I'd be more willing to take risks with my animal companion, which could lead to more fun and effective play.

Thoughts?

[DMBlackhart]

I like this concept if only because, if I recall, swarms deal damage just by sharing space with an enemy.

By default, it negates that old Beastmaster trapping of having to spend your own actions to use your (often weaker) pet.

[JellyPooga]

I definitely like the concept of a Beastmaster that constantly reattunes his companion(s). Especially if his former companion is most frequently dismissed while still living. Very in-keeping with the "old faith druid" type.

Nice.

[Spectre9000]

If you can get attacked by any creature you get as Beastmaster, and they act on their own then, they should be able to act on their own when with you as well. You shouldn't have to micromanage a creature that already can act on its own. That's why Beastmaster is terrible the way it is. The remedy is to have the animal(s) act as they would normally(DM control) and you can direct them when necessary. Most control spells don't even require you dictate a creatures every move.

[Vogonjeltz]

I have an idea for a Beast Master (pure theorycrafting, not for a specific game) and am looking for some feedback. My goal here was to avoid the pitfalls that most players fall into with with archetype. Here it is:

Beast companions often come with a huge logistical cost: They piss of NPCs, they fail stealth checks, they die and make you sad. This concept does away with all of that garbage.

The steps:

Establish your character as a druid-type nature worshipper (or maybe more like a totem barbarian).
Reach level 3. Select Beast Master as archetype.
No matter what environment you are in (even the middle of the city) during your next rest, sit down and meditate, attuning with nearby beasts. Your beast companion will be a swarm of a type depending on your environment: Underdark->bats, urban->rats, forest/badlands->ravens. Swarm of Ravens is the best of the CR 1/4 swarm monsters.
Don't worry about healing your companions or preserving their life at all. Let them die all the time, and play it in character as a "circle of life" kind of deal. If you stick with swarm companions, they can't heal anyway. You'll most likely be reattuning to a new swarm after every combat encounter.


Notes:

The ranger is a fusion of a martial class and the druid. The hunter is more like the fighter, while the beast master is more like the druid; it is NOT the "pet class."
Swarms are not OP; they are balanced according to CR and also cannot heal. If your DM says they are OP then they are flat out wrong. If your DM says that attuning to a swarm is unrealistic, cite your status as a nature-communing outlander follower of the Old Faith. You might have to, for balance reasons, concede that your swarm loses attunement with you if it splits up (this is most relevant for attuned Raven Swarms).
The only advantages of a swarm are its ability to fit into small spaces (which attuning to a single tiny beast can already do) and its damage resistances.
There are rats everywhere, so you should never want for a swarm to attune to. There are birds everywhere, too; since raven swarm is the best swarm, maybe you can get your DM to let your use a reskinned version made of other types of birds (read: chicken swarm).
If you need to have a larger single beast companion for some reason, you are still able to attune to one. Just make sure to kill it off quickly to avoid worldly attachments.
When you're in town and your companion is causing trouble (tracking dirt into the king's hall, etc.) you can just deattune and let them go. Bonus points if you let a panther loose in a crowded marketplace.


I think with this sort of character I'd be more willing to take risks with my animal companion, which could lead to more fun and effective play.

Thoughts?

What page of the MM is the swarm of Ravens on again?

[JoeJ]

What page of the MM is the swarm of Ravens on again?

It's on page 339.

[Vogonjeltz]

It's on page 339.

Wouldn't that not qualify by not being a beast (it's a swarm of beasts). Or is the idea to modify the companion so that when one dies it's just auto regenerated?

[Kane0]

I like this concept if only because, if I recall, swarms deal damage just by sharing space with an enemy.

By default, it negates that old Beastmaster trapping of having to spend your own actions to use your (often weaker) pet.

Nah, they still have to use their action to attack with beaks. Otherwise I'd be entirely with you on this one.

[RickAllison]

Wouldn't that not qualify by not being a beast (it's a swarm of beasts). Or is the idea to modify the companion so that when one dies it's just auto regenerated?

I think that's part of why he is asking. He is seeing about the effect that making a change to the BM rangers could have and seeking input.

[Iguanodon]

I think that's part of why he is asking. He is seeing about the effect that making a change to the BM rangers could have and seeking input.

Exactly. RAW is shaky here and open to interpretation. I'm willing to call these beasts for this purpose, mostly because they are not too OP for their CR, and because there's no reason why they wouldn't interact with other types of monster-type-based abilities. If you say the Swarm of Rats is not a beast, then Favored Enemy wouldn't work against it, which doesn't make sense.

But I want to hear your thoughts on this. I'm mostly wondering: is this enough to make BM ranger (see what I did there?) viable and/or satisfying enough to be worth playing?

[Talamare]

Randomly calling out random local animals is definitely not how I picture BM

I definitely see it as long term companions...
Note the 'S' in companion

A Beastmaster shouldn't have just 1 animal, but maybe about 3

[Kane0]

So a pokemon trainer as opposed to a nature summoner? They're both fine options.

[PoeticDwarf]

It works, but you use way too much time. Every long rest you are busy and 6 hours (right? I'm afb) you must really rest. So you can use the swarm 1 till 3 (not even 1/3 of the encounters) encounters a day and you will need every long rest 14 hours. It would be nice in sandboxes, sure, but not in most other campaigns.

[SouthpawSoldier]

It's an interesting thought.

I've brought up the idea of Swarms in the past (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?408528-RAW-RAI-of-Swarms-for-BM-Ranger), but my concept was adapted and houseruled to allow healing, and had some other tweaks as well.

Going with your concept, a purely RAW swarm, seems...iffy, from the various threads I've found discussing it. Consensus is that swarms are malevolent, and unnatural; PHB even says a Druid cannot charm them. Suggests they're out of a Ranger's scope of influence as well.

[Lines]

It's an interesting thought.

I've brought up the idea of Swarms in the past (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?408528-RAW-RAI-of-Swarms-for-BM-Ranger), but my concept was adapted and houseruled to allow healing, and had some other tweaks as well.

Going with your concept, a purely RAW swarm, seems...iffy, from the various threads I've found discussing it. Consensus is that swarms are malevolent, and unnatural; PHB even says a Druid cannot charm them. Suggests they're out of a Ranger's scope of influence as well.

That really is fluff though. If a ranger wants a swarm of rats in my game I wouldn't hesitate before agreeing to the concept, it's flavourful and fun - I don't care if a ranger fluffs their companion as a real animal with a lifelong bond or a spirit that assumes a form familiar style. If they a spirit taking the form of a swarm or a swarm of creatures that is regularly reinforced by other creatures of their kind I'd happily let them.

[djreynolds]

I love this, I actually proposed a PACK MASTER, old deities and demigods, in the Celtic myths was the hunt master with big antlers and a spear. This could be a class or prestige class or homebrewed archetype. Where maybe you lose out on that second attack. Evil ranger

[Iguanodon]

Consensus is that swarms are malevolent, and unnatural; PHB even says a Druid cannot charm them. Suggests they're out of a Ranger's scope of influence as well.

I'm thinking the Ranger is gathering the swarm out of nearby rats (or bats or ravens or any refluffed small beast) during the meditation/attuning process. Under no circumstances am I suggesting that a Ranger should be able to attune to a swarm of bats summoned by a vampire (which is what the blurb box is really talking about here).

[Mara]

Guide how not to suck with the PH Beastmater
Step 1: Wolf or Flying snake pet
Step 2: Two weapon fighting style (scimitars), high dex, and use your bow when appropriate
Step 3: Use your spells (Also be the one using your spells)

[Vogonjeltz]

Exactly. RAW is shaky here and open to interpretation. I'm willing to call these beasts for this purpose, mostly because they are not too OP for their CR, and because there's no reason why they wouldn't interact with other types of monster-type-based abilities. If you say the Swarm of Rats is not a beast, then Favored Enemy wouldn't work against it, which doesn't make sense.

But I want to hear your thoughts on this. I'm mostly wondering: is this enough to make BM ranger (see what I did there?) viable and/or satisfying enough to be worth playing?

Well, no, it's a plural group so favored enemy would still apply just fine.

The beastmaster is already better than the alternatives in terms of value, the knock has always been a style one not substance.

In any case I wouldn't allow a swarm for reasons of immersion and balance (gaining a new companion would be too easy)

[Lines]

Guide how not to suck with the PH Beastmater
Step 1: Wolf or Flying snake pet
Step 2: Two weapon fighting style (scimitars), high dex, and use your bow when appropriate
Step 3: Use your spells (Also be the one using your spells)

I am very confused. How is step one good? You're giving up your own attack to let it attack, it acquired brain damage when you tamed it and now has to be specifically ordered to attack every 6 seconds or it will stop.

[Mara]

I am very confused. How is step one good? You're giving up your own attack to let it attack, it acquired brain damage when you tamed it and now has to be specifically ordered to attack every 6 seconds or it will stop. Those are the good animal companions. Beastmaster has far more damage potential than hunter, easily comparable to a fighter while being a half caster. The downside is you and your extra damage is squishyer

Mathmatically, beastmaster is sound.

Thematically, yes there are problems. If that is the "suck" trying to be solved, then by all means continue.

[RickAllison]

Those are the good animal companions. Beastmaster has far more damage potential than hunter, easily comparable to a fighter while being a half caster. The downside is you and your extra damage is squishyer

Mathmatically, beastmaster is sound.

Thematically, yes there are problems. If that is the "suck" trying to be solved, then by all means continue.

Please supply the mathematics verifying your claim, as they seem opposed to the prevailing sentiment and it would provide a point in favor of the beastmaster, which is desperately needed. Debate works best when evidence is supplied (and yes, that goes both ways; the pro-Hunter/anti-Ranger crowd would be expected to verify their claims to have the same veracity).

[Talamare]

Those are the good animal companions. Beastmaster has far more damage potential than hunter, easily comparable to a fighter while being a half caster. The downside is you and your extra damage is squishyer

Mathmatically, beastmaster is sound.

Thematically, yes there are problems. If that is the "suck" trying to be solved, then by all means continue.

I believe Giant Badger and Giant Poisonous Snake were the only 2 Beasts that were actually good. Maybe, Panther as well.

[Lines]

I believe Giant Badger and Giant Poisonous Snake were the only 2 Beasts that were actually good. Maybe, Panther as well.

Flying snake's good too since it can just fly off after every attack and avoid dying. Badger's pretty much useless, it's balanced around multiattack with animal companions can't use.

[Mara]

Please supply the mathematics verifying your claim, as they seem opposed to the prevailing sentiment and it would provide a point in favor of the beastmaster, which is desperately needed. Debate works best when evidence is supplied (and yes, that goes both ways; the pro-Hunter/anti-Ranger crowd would be expected to verify their claims to have the same veracity). I'll use wolf
At max
2 +10 to-hit attacks at advantage for 2d4+8+1d6 hunters mark
2 +11 scimitar attacks for 2d6+5 damage
total 6d6+26+4d4 damage

At level 5
One Beast Attack
One bow or two scimitar attacks

At level 11
Two Beast Attacks
One Bow or two scimitar attacks

Instead of hunter's mark you can use other spells for less damage but more otherstuff.

Flying snake has higher to-hit, ac, and damage, but a good chunk of the damage is poison and someone may think increasing each kind of damage isn't ok.

[RickAllison]

I'll use wolf
At max
2 +10 to-hit attacks at advantage for 2d4+8+1d6 hunters mark
2 +11 scimitar attacks for 2d6+5 damage
total 6d6+26+4d4 damage

At level 5
One Beast Attack
One bow or two scimitar attacks

At level 11
Two Beast Attacks
One Bow or two scimitar attacks

Instead of hunter's mark you can use other spells for less damage but more otherstuff.

Flying snake has higher to-hit, ac, and damage, but a good chunk of the damage is poison and someone may think increasing each kind of damage isn't ok.

Remember that Hunter's Mark only works when you deal damage, not the animal companion. So the max equation would actually be 4d6+26+4d4 if everything checks out, or an average DPR of 50.

[Lines]

I'll use wolf
At max
2 +10 to-hit attacks at advantage for 2d4+8+1d6 hunters mark
2 +11 scimitar attacks for 2d6+5 damage
total 6d6+26+4d4 damage

At level 5
One Beast Attack
One bow or two scimitar attacks

At level 11
Two Beast Attacks
One Bow or two scimitar attacks

Instead of hunter's mark you can use other spells for less damage but more otherstuff.

Flying snake has higher to-hit, ac, and damage, but a good chunk of the damage is poison and someone may think increasing each kind of damage isn't ok.

Well, it isn't ok, if you have claws that do an extra 1d6 fire damage you don't increase both the claw and the fire damage with a +2 damage bonus. Nonetheless the flying snake has a huge advantage in not being anywhere near as easy to kill as a wolf is, so lets get into damage - the snake will start off at +8 to hit, 10.5 damage and end up at +12 to hit, 14.5 damage, while the ranger will start off at +7 to hit, 7.5 damage and end up at +13 to hit, 9.5 damage or +8 to hit, 19.5 damage. Technically this makes the snake a direct damage upgrade, especially post 11 where the damage doubles, it just doesn't factor in how incredibly vulnerable to spells the beast is, the damage boost from hunters mark or swift quiver and how the damage doesn't scale with magic items or the fact that that damage is forgoing another subclass.

Edit: Looking at the numbers, I should admit my bias against the beastmaster may be more rooted in how stupid the idea of a wolf needing to be reminded to attack every 6 seconds. I care about verisimilitude and having every ranger apparently bond with his animal by lobotomising it annoys the hell out of me. The numbers look pretty much fine.

[Iguanodon]

In any case I wouldn't allow a swarm for reasons of immersion and balance (gaining a new companion would be too easy)

Why do you think it should be hard to gain a new companion? I think the developers expected rangers to cycle through companions all the time, and the entire point of this concept is to do just that.

My other question is: Why do you think it wouldn't be immersive to have a ranger with a swarm of rats following them around?

I've already said I think your balance complaint is invalid, but I wonder about the other two. Is there a real reason to disallow swarms on these grounds?

[RickAllison]

Why do you think it should be hard to gain a new companion? I think the developers expected rangers to cycle through companions all the time, and the entire point of this concept is to do just that.

My other question is: Why do you think it wouldn't be immersive to have a ranger with a swarm of rats following them around?

I've already said I think your balance complaint is invalid, but I wonder about the other two. Is there a real reason to disallow swarms on these grounds?

One argument would be that the rules allow for a change of companion when the previous beast dies.

[Mara]

Remember that Hunter's Mark only works when you deal damage, not the animal companion. So the max equation would actually be 4d6+26+4d4 if everything checks out, or an average DPR of 50.

Actually Max level beastmaster shares spells.


Edit: Looking at the numbers, I should admit my bias against the beastmaster may be more rooted in how stupid the idea of a wolf needing to be reminded to attack every 6 seconds. I care about verisimilitude and having every ranger apparently bond with his animal by lobotomising it annoys the hell out of me. The numbers look pretty much fine.

Oh I totally agree there. Flavor-wise you could say the animal is rigorously trained and that rigor is why prof bonus adds to so many things and why it only takes action on command. But yeah, thematically the beastmaster's mechanics bug me.

[JoeJ]

My other question is: Why do you think it wouldn't be immersive to have a ranger with a swarm of rats following them around?

Well, if you give him proficiency with a pan flute (https://paintjuice.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/piedpiper.gif)...

[RickAllison]

Actually Max level beast master shares spells.


Beginning at 15th level, when you cast a spell targeting
yourself, you can also affect your beast companion with
the spell if the beast is within 30 feet o f you.


You choose a creature you can see within range and
mystically mark it as your quarry.

Hunter's Mark targets a creature, not the ranger. Thus, it does not extend to the beast. If you want a decent spell for it, try something like Divine Favor with a 1 level dip in Cleric. It targets the caster, so it would apply to the companion, giving a bonus of 4d4 rather than 2d6.

[Giant2005]

Hunter's Mark targets a creature, not the ranger. Thus, it does not extend to the beast. If you want a decent spell for it, try something like Divine Favor with a 1 level dip in Cleric. It targets the caster, so it would apply to the companion, giving a bonus of 4d4 rather than 2d6.

It doesn't really matter anyway. Due to the Companion's damage being so high and the Ranger's damage being so low, you increase your average DPR a lot more by using Beast Bond anyway. It is only against the lowest of ACs where damage increases are more effective than Beast Bond.

[Mara]

Hunter's Mark targets a creature, not the ranger. Thus, it does not extend to the beast. If you want a decent spell for it, try something like Divine Favor with a 1 level dip in Cleric. It targets the caster, so it would apply to the companion, giving a bonus of 4d4 rather than 2d6.I would rule hunter's mark as a buff spell. Mainly because the spell does persist after the target is dead. If the spell was on the target, it should end when the target dies not be a redirect-able ability.

Rather than dip, you can use things like ensaring strike, or have conjure animals up, or one of your other spells in play. You take a DPR hit when doing that though.

[Lines]

I would rule hunter's mark as a buff spell. Mainly because the spell does persist after the target is dead. If the spell was on the target, it should end when the target dies not be a redirect-able ability.

Rather than dip, you can use things like ensaring strike, or have conjure animals up, or one of your other spells in play. You take a DPR hit when doing that though.

It still doesn't target you, though. This is all pointless, however, in that any DM should be letting hunters mark apply to the pet as well. Why does 5e not have a target line in its spell description?

[RickAllison]

I would rule hunter's mark as a buff spell. Mainly because the spell does persist after the target is dead. If the spell was on the target, it should end when the target dies not be a redirect-able ability.

Rather than dip, you can use things like ensaring strike, or have conjure animals up, or one of your other spells in play. You take a DPR hit when doing that though.

Hunter's Mark and Hex can change targets, but the target is still another creature rather than the caster. Well, technically he could target himself which would give him bonus damage to attack himself or his companion. The two spells form a unique sub-class of spells with a unique mechanic, but are hardly alone on that front.

[Mara]

Hunter's Mark and Hex can change targets, but the target is still another creature rather than the caster. Well, technically he could target himself which would give him bonus damage to attack himself or his companion. The two spells form a unique sub-class of spells with a unique mechanic, but are hardly alone on that front. Ah but if the target is dead, where is the spell? Because the spell didn't go away. [Metaphysics question]

I'm not super invested in this point. I'll just chalk this up as another crack in the 5e system. This closer I look at this system, the less enthused I am. It seems the strength of this game is enabling good DMs to do what they want easily. Without talent filling in the cracks and building new framework, this game is subpar.

[RickAllison]

Ah but if the target is dead, where is the spell? Because the spell didn't go away. [Metaphysics question]

I'm not super invested in this point. I'll just chalk this up as another crack in the 5e system. This closer I look at this system, the less enthused I am. It seems the strength of this game is enabling good DMs to do what they want easily. Without talent filling in the cracks and building new framework, this game is subpar.

This edition is all about taking the system back to a more flexible, DM-empowered system. It allows for far greater freedom, but it is not for everyone. Fortunately for those members of the community, that is why we still have 3.X/PF!

[Lines]

This edition is all about taking the system back to a more flexible, DM-empowered system. It allows for far greater freedom, but it is not for everyone. Fortunately for those members of the community, that is why we still have 3.X/PF!

Ehhhh... I'm not sure how to put this, but I'll give it a try. The greatest tradeoff is complexity vs depth. The more complete the rules are, ie the thought out, well defined and logical they are, the more they sensibly interact with each other, the better the game is and the more fun people have. The problem is you pay a price in complexity - you want as little complexity as possible and as much depth/completeness, which is why for instance 5e chose to make encumbrance simply 15xstrength pounds. Makes less sense but is simpler, they put more value on simplicity and less on depth than in 3.5, but note that neither editions have the highest or lowers values seen - GURPS for instance values simplicity a lot less strongly than 3.5 does.

The problem with poorly defined targeting and no target line in spells is it would have almost no cost in complexity but does result in a loss of completeness. That's the objection.

[RickAllison]

Ehhhh... I'm not sure how to put this, but I'll give it a try. The greatest tradeoff is complexity vs depth. The more complete the rules are, ie the thought out, well defined and logical they are, the more they sensibly interact with each other, the better the game is and the more fun people have. The problem is you pay a price in complexity - you want as little complexity as possible and as much depth/completeness, which is why for instance 5e chose to make encumbrance simply 15xstrength pounds. Makes less sense but is simpler, they put more value on simplicity and less on depth than in 3.5, but note that neither editions have the highest or lowers values seen - GURPS for instance values simplicity a lot less strongly than 3.5 does.

The problem with poorly defined targeting and no target line in spells is it would have almost no cost in complexity but does result in a loss of completeness. That's the objection.

It is good to keep in mind that the more complete rulesets tend to be the result of extended periods of time for multiple layers of errata and trial-and-error. Remember that arguably the most complete framework for a D&D edition, 3.5, was the result of three years of trials as 3e and more as the revised system.

For other complete systems, they tend to evolve as continuous but iterated rulesets. Rather than having major overhauls every few years, they make changes that keep the game consistent to older iterations.

[Lines]

It is good to keep in mind that the more complete rulesets tend to be the result of extended periods of time for multiple layers of errata and trial-and-error. Remember that arguably the most complete framework for a D&D edition, 3.5, was the result of three years of trials as 3e and more as the revised system.

For other complete systems, they tend to evolve as continuous but iterated rulesets. Rather than having major overhauls every few years, they make changes that keep the game consistent to older iterations.

They've had many, many years of experience. Things that might have been forgivable in 3.5 are not in 5e. The trial and error for almost everything has already taken place.

[RickAllison]

They've had many, many years of experience. Things that might have been forgivable in 3.5 are not in 5e. The trial and error for almost everything has already taken place.

As I continued in the second paragraph, the difference is that they created a new system. The core foundation of the system, which they could use experience from previous systems, is pretty spot-on IMO. The issues come from the implementation of changes and particulars which by their nature can't have had prior trials since the implementation is unique to the system.

[Lines]

As I continued in the second paragraph, the difference is that they created a new system. The core foundation of the system, which they could use experience from previous systems, is pretty spot-on IMO. The issues come from the implementation of changes and particulars which by their nature can't have had prior trials since the implementation is unique to the system.

That line of reasoning makes sense - I do think 5e has a good chassis for the most part, though I would have made extra attacks work a little differently, but every idiot decision I can think of seems to be something that didn't really need a lot of playtesting. The multiattack thing we were discussing, for instance - they knew some animals would have multiattack, yet they never included it in the command line, and even when it came to errata they chose the wrong thing.

[djreynolds]

You know there are pipes of something, and you could get your swarm that way as well.

[Lines]

You know there are pipes of something, and you could get your swarm that way as well.

A class feature shouldn't be reliant on finding a magic item, though. And the whole point to this is having swarms as the ranger companion, relying on a magic item for it is like going for boots of flying instead of being aarakocra, kind of missing the point.

[choryukami]

This... is an excellent idea. The only ideas I had so far were using a stirge and having it attach, and getting an awakened animal as your companion.