Are BeastMaster Rangers really that bad?

[DwarvenGM]

Hello everyone,

I've been running a 5th edition game since it first came out and as my current campaign is coming to an end one of my players has offered to run a short campaign to give me a chance to sit on the other side of the screen while I prepare my next campaign.

Anyways the player has asked u to make non optimized level 7 characters for this game. And my first thought was a hill dwarf Beast master ranger with the guild Artisan (a brew master). Who uses solely hand axes and his giant toad animal companion.

My question is how bad are the beast masters? Will I be hurting the group with this choice. I know non optimized doesn't mean worthless so I want a character who is fun to role play and useful to the group with not being too powerful.

I've experienced a mountain dwarf hunter ranger and that was very optimized as it duel wielded axes and carved up every enemy in it's path so I want to avoid that combo.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The DPR, apparently, stacks up just fine; it's mostly that the action economy feels weird as hell.

[Oramac]

From the times I've seen a BM Ranger play, they don't seem bad at all. A little wonky with their actions, to be sure, but as far as actual damage/usefulness goes, they seem to be just fine.

This is all subjective though. I haven't actually done any math on it.

[Specter]

Not THAT bad, just a bit bad. And weird in action economy. But if it's non-optimized, don't sweat it.

Also, cheap trick, if one of your bros reduces the target (via Enlarge/Reduce), your toad can swallow them!

[Easy_Lee]

Main issues are that the beast is easy to kill and, rather than gaining meaningful features, your ability to command the beast is arbitrarily restricted with only some of those restrictions removed as you gain levels.

Basically, it's poorly designed.

Best fix:

Play a small race and choose a medium beast.
Acquire an exotic saddle, mounted combatant feat, and ride the beast.

You can now command it to do several things for free, as a mount. Mounted combatant fixes it's survival issues.

[Temperjoke]

Really, they only seem bad because most people reviewing them are looking at them from an optimizing aspect. Realistically, from a non-optimized viewpoint, there is nothing wrong with any of the classes, it all depends on the game and the group you're playing with.

[gfishfunk]

When we first started 5e, we ran a simple 3-4 sessions and I played a beast master with a pet centipede. It was fun.

[Naanomi]

It isn't bad at all, the beast is squishy but easily replaceable in most cases. The mechanics feel 'gamey' compared to the rest of the edition is the main struggle. My giant crab was useful in many situations

[famousringo]

Beast masters aren't as bad as they're made out to be, but they are difficult to optimize (don't scale well with feats or magic weapons), and they have some particular challenges at certain levels of play, such as getting through damage resistance.

Since you picked giant frog (I'm assuming you meant frog, giant toads aren't a valid choice by RAW), damage resistance isn't going to be a huge deal. The nice thing with frog is being able to grapple and restrain anything it hits, and resistance won't stop that. Beastmaster is the ranger's tank/control option, so use the extra area you can threaten, the extra reaction from your pet, the extra hp it grants, and it's ability to restrain enemies to protect your team.

The biggest concern for you is pet survivability. I suggest talking to your DM to make sure your pet at least gets death saves instead of dying at 0, and fighting alongside it and taking Sentinel to help discourage enemies from attacking it. Also worth asking the party wizard/sorcerer to cast Mage Armor on it, taking a level dip or feat to do it yourself, or buying barding.

[Arkhios]

We just had our first session with beast master in tow, and he pulled his weight remarkably well. I really began to wonder if people who keep saying "it sucks" have ever really seen one in play or played one themselves. At 3rd level the Panther companion was devastating with its Pounce Claw+Bite. It really didn't matter that the ranger himself couldn't attack in the same turn; Panther having almost equal attack bonus, and superior damage compared to ranger himself.
Archer fighting style with longbow dealing 1d8+3 vs. Panther's pounce (claw+bite) 1d6+4+1d4+4...

The action economy might seem weird, I agree, but at least at this point the Beast Master shone in my eyes. I'm thinking that even I may have made rushed assumptions.

[DwarvenGM]

Thanks a lot for the feed back.

It's good to know they're not that far behind the curve. Though the lack of hit points on the companion is a little worrisome but I'll just focus on keeping him away from any heavy hitters.

And yes I went for the frog for the ability to swallow small creatures. I doubt it'll be effective often but it should be fun to try.

[TentacleSurpris]

They're bad for a few reasons, but this is my biggest gripe. Say you choose a wolf, a pretty iconic pet. It has 13 AC and 12 hit points, so it will die in one round against almost any CR 3 enemy. When it does die, how do you get a new one?

The PHB says that you can spend 8 hours magically bonding with a new beast that isn't hostile to you. But how do you find a non-hostile wolf? Wolves are hostile by nature. Well, you have to first go out and find one. That means waiting until the end of the current adventure, leaving the party, going out into the wild, tracking down a wolf pack, (most importantly) not getting killed by said wolf pack, and convincing one of the wolves to neither eat you nor run away while you spend 8 hours petting it. How is this actually accomplished?

Suppose you're playing Horde of the Dragon Queen, where each chapter of the adventure follows immediately after the previous one. You're trackinig the Cult of the Dragon across the Sword Coast, desperately trying to catch them before they summon Tiamat into the world. When do you have a week to set aside to go track down a new wolf? How many times will you need to take this week off before Tiamat gets raised because you kept searching for new pets every 2 sessions when they died?

I have no idea how a Ranger would replace his pet in organized Adventurer's League play, where DMs don't have the freedom to run their own quests for you to get your wolf back.

12 points of damage becomes extremely disruptive to the flow of the adventure, the story, and at the end of the day, you'll spend more time with your pet dead than alive. You can't hide it in a pocket dimension like a familiar when you're expecting dragon's breath. It's going to eat up the cleric's heals to stay alive. So a class feature that spends most of your career dead isn't much of a feature, is it?

[TentacleSurpris]

My second biggest gripe is fleeing from a battle. You and your pet can't flee the same battle because only one of you can take the Dash action in a turn. So to Dash away from a fight, you have to leave your pet behind. I don't know if you've ever seen a dog or wolf, but they run faster than humans. A LOT faster. But a Ranger racing against his pet will win every time.

Rules as Written, you can't even go for a jog with your pet doggie because you both can't dash in the same round.

My next gripe is that "when travelling through your favored terrain with only the beast, you can move stealthily at a normal pace." It does NOT say that the pet can move stealthily at a normal pace. So what good does this do you? In fact, the pet can't take the HIDE action, see below.

My next gripe is related to the action economy, but it's not the oen you think. You'd think that having a pet would be good for tracking or searching for things, because the doggie can use its nose to help you find things. WRONG AGAIN. It can only use its action when you use your action to tell it to. And it can only perform the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help actions. It can't take the HIDE or SEARCH actions. So your stealthy pets can't stealth and your pets with advantage on perception can't make perception checks deliberately. You can command your bloodhound to "go find him, boy" until the cows come home but he can't actively search for things RAW.

Of course we can rewrite the rules to work, but if we do that, what is Mike Mearls' job and why are we paying him $65 per book?

[DanyBallon]

They're bad for a few reasons, but this is my biggest gripe. Say you choose a wolf, a pretty iconic pet. It has 13 AC and 12 hit points, so it will die in one round against almost any CR 3 enemy. When it does die, how do you get a new one?

The PHB says that you can spend 8 hours magically bonding with a new beast that isn't hostile to you. But how do you find a non-hostile wolf? Wolves are hostile by nature. Well, you have to first go out and find one. That means waiting until the end of the current adventure, leaving the party, going out into the wild, tracking down a wolf pack, (most importantly) not getting killed by said wolf pack, and convincing one of the wolves to neither eat you nor run away while you spend 8 hours petting it. How is this actually accomplished?

Suppose you're playing Horde of the Dragon Queen, where each chapter of the adventure follows immediately after the previous one. You're trackinig the Cult of the Dragon across the Sword Coast, desperately trying to catch them before they summon Tiamat into the world. When do you have a week to set aside to go track down a new wolf? How many times will you need to take this week off before Tiamat gets raised because you kept searching for new pets every 2 sessions when they died?

I have no idea how a Ranger would replace his pet in organized Adventurer's League play, where DMs don't have the freedom to run their own quests for you to get your wolf back.

12 points of damage becomes extremely disruptive to the flow of the adventure, the story, and at the end of the day, you'll spend more time with your pet dead than alive. You can't hide it in a pocket dimension like a familiar when you're expecting dragon's breath. It's going to eat up the cleric's heals to stay alive. So a class feature that spends most of your career dead isn't much of a feature, is it?

Actually the wolf companion AC would be 15 as you add your proficiency bonus to its AC and nothing prevent the Beastmaster ranger to buy barding to its companion to increase its AC.
A ranger can attempt to make the wolf non-hostile with a single check, or even better the DM can handwave the check if he believe that if will be best to do so. In AL the Ranger could use its downtime activity to get a new companion.

[jas61292]

My second biggest gripe is fleeing from a battle. You and your pet can't flee the same battle because only one of you can take the Dash action in a turn. So to Dash away from a fight, you have to leave your pet behind. I don't know if you've ever seen a dog or wolf, but they run faster than humans. A LOT faster. But a Ranger racing against his pet will win every time.

Rules as Written, you can't even go for a jog with your pet doggie because you both can't dash in the same round.

My next gripe is that "when travelling through your favored terrain with only the beast, you can move stealthily at a normal pace." It does NOT say that the pet can move stealthily at a normal pace. So what good does this do you? In fact, the pet can't take the HIDE action, see below.

My next gripe is related to the action economy, but it's not the oen you think. You'd think that having a pet would be good for tracking or searching for things, because the doggie can use its nose to help you find things. WRONG AGAIN. It can only use its action when you use your action to tell it to. And it can only perform the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help actions. It can't take the HIDE or SEARCH actions. So your stealthy pets can't stealth and your pets with advantage on perception can't make perception checks deliberately. You can command your bloodhound to "go find him, boy" until the cows come home but he can't actively search for things RAW.

Of course we can rewrite the rules to work, but if we do that, what is Mike Mearls' job and why are we paying him $65 per book?

While I'm not going to say there are no issues with this class, you seem to have a big problem due to trying to apply combat rules to non-combat situations. Anyone who says you can't jog with your dog because combat rules is a moron who shouldn't be DMing.

Combat rules are an abstraction for the hectic periods of conflict. The are not, and should not be used, for non combat scenarios. So yes, you can jog with your dog, sneak with your dog, track with your dog, etc. Turns simply do not exist outside combat, and using things like that to restrict what you can do outside combat is not following the rules as written.

[Easy_Lee]

My biggest gripe is giving up the ranger's own actions to control the beast. From a numbers perspective, I understand why they did this. But I think it was a poor solution.

One fix I've mentioned before, if anyone cares to use it: Give up extra attack for the ranger at 5, and make commanding the pet a free action. This brings the numbers approximately in line with a hunter's damage, without breaking the archetype. The beast is still very susceptible to saving throws, so I don't feel this solution is too powerful.

That opens up some slots for archetype features. Some thoughts:

Allow ranger to resurrect the beast as a ritual.
Allow ranger to cast the druid spell Awaken on the beast after a certain level, so it can talk and deliver messages.
Allow ranger to enlarge or shrink the beast as an action, without affecting its stats, so Rangers can take their dangerous Panthers and pteranodons into towns without issue.

[SharkForce]

While I'm not going to say there are no issues with this class, you seem to have a big problem due to trying to apply combat rules to non-combat situations. Anyone who says you can't jog with your dog because combat rules is a moron who shouldn't be DMing.

Combat rules are an abstraction for the hectic periods of conflict. The are not, and should not be used, for non combat scenarios. So yes, you can jog with your dog, sneak with your dog, track with your dog, etc. Turns simply do not exist outside combat, and using things like that to restrict what you can do outside combat is not following the rules as written.

that would simply change the concern to only include combat. I'm not sure he'll be thrilled to know that his panther can sneak, just not when you want it to sneak up and attack something.

anyways, as has been mentioned, the rules are pretty clunky, many people don't like them, and you're going to need a DM who is at least somewhat on your side to make it work the way it should. but no, it isn't that bad. more like "not working the way people would like it to".

[MrFahrenheit]

No. They're not terrible. If your DM wants to play with no RAI, then acquiring a companion can be obnoxious. I'd be inclined to have you roll survival, then animal handling, then you get your new companion if both succeed. Otherwise, try again next long rest. YMMV.

The thing to remember with any subclass is this: your overall combat role in the party is determined by your class. Subclasses only address HOW you participate in said role.

At higher levels, the companion becomes less of a target, as its damage scales poorly so it won't be attacking as much...but it can still grant your companions advantage through the help action. So instead of a full-on striker (to use a 4e term) like the hunter, you're an off-controller. Instead of an additional 1d6 +1d8 once a round against a specific target (and the latter die only if the bad guy is already injured), you grant consistent advantage through your companion. Which is arguably more helpful. Sure, YOU aren't hitting as hard, but the entire party is hitting more. That is a typical 5e trade off.

Meanwhile, BBEG is thinking "do I waste part of my multi attack on this wolf, or go for the paladin that just smote me hard twice?"

[Easy_Lee]

At higher levels, the companion becomes less of a target, as its damage scales poorly so it won't be attacking as much...but it can still grant your companions advantage through the help action. So instead of a full-on striker (to use a 4e term) like the hunter, you're an off-controller. Instead of an additional 1d6 +1d8 once a round against a specific target (and the latter die only if the bad guy is already injured), you grant consistent advantage through your companion. Which is arguably more helpful. Sure, YOU aren't hitting as hard, but the entire party is hitting more. That is a typical 5e trade off.

You can acquire Help every round by using a familiar, which you can get through a feat and don't have to spend your bonus action to command.

[Arkhios]

You can acquire Help every round by using a familiar, which you can get through a feat and don't have to spend your bonus action to command.

That's a feat or ASI less to spend for something potentially more useful.

[DwarvenGM]

Hmmm... it seems like an interesting topic, I can already see a few house rules to implement when I go back to running the game.

I'm thinking maybe allowing players to get a new one during a long rest with out any hoops to jump through. Maybe even allow them to change it during a long rest to make it a more versatile ability.

I may steal your thoughts too Easy_Lee if you don't mind.

All this input really helpful and I'm thinking actually playing one will help me figure out what house rules to apply to it.

[gfishfunk]

Easiest house rule: when the animal companion reaches 0, it goes unconscious. Not dead, just unconscious. No death saves or anything. Its not consistent, it does not make sense in terms of game mechanics, but it is easy and balances out the largest drawback instantly.

[Easy_Lee]

Hmmm... it seems like an interesting topic, I can already see a few house rules to implement when I go back to running the game.

I'm thinking maybe allowing players to get a new one during a long rest with out any hoops to jump through. Maybe even allow them to change it during a long rest to make it a more versatile ability.

I may steal your thoughts too Easy_Lee if you don't mind.

All this input really helpful and I'm thinking actually playing one will help me figure out what house rules to apply to it.

By all means. I'm honored that you like my idea.

Regarding the beast, allow me to explain my reasoning from earlier. A familiar can be commanded to do anything but attack as a free action. A mount can be commanded to dash, disengage, or dodge as a free action. Summoned creatures act freely.

But a BM must give up his own action or bonus action to command his "companion" to do anything but move, every round. This does not fit with the archetype theme. Nor is it consistent. This, above all else, is why I believe the archetype needs help. The Google results for "d&d 5e beastmaster" seem to agree.

I started from the basis of a free acting companion, most similar to a familiar, and went from there. I hope that, whether people agree with my reasoning or not, you can all at least see where I'm coming from.

[Temperjoke]

Another thing that would help boost BeastMasters is if they loosened some of the restrictions too, like increasing the max size and CR of the allowed, or maybe when you hit a certain level, your pet increases in size (same pet, just bigger) and received a bigger stat jump. I don't know if I'd make commanding the beast a free action, rather make it a bonus action, that way you have to make a choice on using your bonus action for something else instead. That would keep it balanced so the pet is a part of you, rather than another party member.

[DanyBallon]

By all means. I'm honored that you like my idea.

Regarding the beast, allow me to explain my reasoning from earlier. A familiar can be commanded to do anything but attack as a free action. A mount can be commanded to dash, disengage, or dodge as a free action. Summoned creatures act freely.

But a BM must give up his own action or bonus action to command his "companion" to do anything but move, every round. This does not fit with the archetype theme. Nor is it consistent. This, above all else, is why I believe the archetype needs help. The Google results for "d&d 5e beastmaster" seem to agree.

I started from the basis of a free acting companion, most similar to a familiar, and went from there. I hope that, whether people agree with my reasoning or not, you can all at least see where I'm coming from.

The change I want to try, and haven't had the chance to playtest yet, is to allow to command your companion to take the Dash, Hide, Disengage action, as a bonus action from 3rd level, and to take Dodge and Help action as a bonus action at 7th level.

[Easy_Lee]

Another thing that would help boost BeastMasters is if they loosened some of the restrictions too, like increasing the max size and CR of the allowed, or maybe when you hit a certain level, your pet increases in size (same pet, just bigger) and received a bigger stat jump. I don't know if I'd make commanding the beast a free action, rather make it a bonus action, that way you have to make a choice on using your bonus action for something else instead. That would keep it balanced so the pet is a part of you, rather than another party member.

In that case, mounts, familiars, and summoned creatures are imbalanced. I went in with the assumption that they were fine. The companion is the outlier.

[MrFahrenheit]

The argument against a BM at later levels for having to give up a bonus action is part of 5e's balance.

Do I...
A) prep lightning arrow as a bonus action and cast it, or
B) command my companion to help?

Neither one of these is a wrong answer. While it's not 100% the equivalent, consider the above scenario against a tempest cleric who can use concentration to cast bless while also casting lightning bolt. He can basically do both of the things listed in the ranger problem above at once. His limitation, however, is in the number of times he can do it. Sure, the ranger is limited similarly regarding his spells, but not with the companion's bonus action help.

[Temperjoke]

In that case, mounts, familiars, and summoned creatures are imbalanced. I went in with the assumption that they were fine. The companion is the outlier.

Well, mounts and familiars (except maybe Chain warlock ones) have less effect in combat on their own, given their abilities. Summoned creatures have a separate price to get them, and don't last as long as a companion, so that balances them a bit more.


The argument against a BM at later levels for having to give up a bonus action is part of 5e's balance.

Do I...
A) prep lightning arrow as a bonus action and cast it, or
B) command my companion to help?

Neither one of these is a wrong answer. While it's not 100% the equivalent, consider the above scenario against a tempest cleric who can use concentration to cast bless while also casting lightning bolt. He can basically do both of the things listed in the ranger problem above at once. His limitation, however, is in the number of times he can do it. Sure, the ranger is limited similarly regarding his spells, but not with the companion's bonus action help.

Right, but concentration is a separate mechanical issue. The cleric can't have two separate concentration spells active at once, which is a balancing factor for his actions. I think trying to balance class against class only works in certain circumstances, which this case isn't necessarily a good match.

At level 5 the ranger gets an extra attack, so maybe at that point you can use that extra attack to command your companion, freeing up your bonus action again, which would help alleviate the bonus action issue later?

[MrFahrenheit]

Well, mounts and familiars (except maybe Chain warlock ones) have less effect in combat on their own, given their abilities. Summoned creatures have a separate price to get them, and don't last as long as a companion, so that balances them a bit more.



Right, but concentration is a separate mechanical issue. The cleric can't have two separate concentration spells active at once, which is a balancing factor for his actions. I think trying to balance class against class only works in certain circumstances, which this case isn't necessarily a good match.

At level 5 the ranger gets an extra attack, so maybe at that point you can use that extra attack to command your companion, freeing up your bonus action again, which would help alleviate the bonus action issue later?

I did say it wasn't a 100% equivalent... :P bottom line remains the same, regarding balance, as we agree.

[RulesJD]

Hello everyone,

I've been running a 5th edition game since it first came out and as my current campaign is coming to an end one of my players has offered to run a short campaign to give me a chance to sit on the other side of the screen while I prepare my next campaign.

Anyways the player has asked u to make non optimized level 7 characters for this game. And my first thought was a hill dwarf Beast master ranger with the guild Artisan (a brew master). Who uses solely hand axes and his giant toad animal companion.

My question is how bad are the beast masters? Will I be hurting the group with this choice. I know non optimized doesn't mean worthless so I want a character who is fun to role play and useful to the group with not being too powerful.

I've experienced a mountain dwarf hunter ranger and that was very optimized as it duel wielded axes and carved up every enemy in it's path so I want to avoid that combo.

1. Other classes do the "Beastmaster" schtick 10x better through Find Familiar (Warlock Upgraded) and the Find Steed spell.

2. Their damage doesn't scale, like at all.

3. One Fireball = your entire class mechanic is potentially gone, especially if you're in terrain like the Underdark and there are no natural beasts around that you'd want. Even then, it's still 8 hours to get a significantly WORSE version of an animal than you'd get with Find Steed.

[Easy_Lee]

To me, the balance point is simply this: a companion should not be inferior to a mount or familiar, but shouldn't increase the beast master's number of attacks or damage beyond what a hunter can achieve. The hunter gains other archetype features, such as whirlwind attack / volley shot. And of course the beast must be buffed (and, possibly, equipped) separately from the beast master. So I believe balancing damage for both, approximately, and letting each have their own separate pros and cons is most balanced.

Hence, I took extra attack away from the ranger. He can thus command his beast to attack up to once per round, or have it do something else. It will eventually gain an additional attack when it takes the attack action (prevents double multi attack from dire badger), and can make attacks of opportunity. Having this instead of extra attack and the hunter features, I believe, is reasonable.

That's why my proposed features added quality of life things, such as beast resurrection and changing its size, instead of extra combat options.

[N810]

I feel like your beast should level up when you do ?
after all you are a team and have all the same experiences.

[Specter]

So, a few things to ask your DM. Feel free to disregard me.

1) When you ask the pet to do something intelligent (like waiting to ambush an enemy, or fetching a specific object, or waiting until you return) does it understand?
2) Will the pet be able to roll death saving throws?
3) Will the pet be able to follow you without your action, or with a simple command like a whistle?
4) Will you get a say on a new pet if your current one dies?

If your DM says no to these, you're probably better off.

[DwarvenGM]

It definitely seems like there is room for improvement with the beastmaster but it seems like for a 3-4 quick session I should be fine with him as is. I'll be writing out my ideas for house rule and taking all the awesome advise I've gotten here as I play.

The idea of a beastmaster is so awesome I want to make sure I offer a decent version in my game.

[KorvinStarmast]

I feel like your beast should level up when you do ?
after all you are a team and have all the same experiences.
They sort of do, and sort of don't. (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/82429/22566)

[MrFahrenheit]

When assassins don't get a surprise round or have enough time to craft poisons/create a fake identity, they're just a vanilla rogue. A battle master who runs out of maneuver dice is just a vanilla fighter. Yet everyone seems to get that 5e is situational or quantitative (respectively) in those cases. If a beast master loses his companion, he's a vanilla ranger. As is a hunter going up against an enemy who doesn't trigger their subclass features. It's all balance. Rangers are different in that their subclasses aren't both quantitatively limited, or situationally limited, but rather one of each (interestingly, the champion is a situational fighter subclass, but people seem to "get" it too. Perhaps because the bonuses are all passive?)

Your class will determine the overall play style. Its subclass just adds flavor.

[Regulas]

(prevents double multi attack from dire badger)

Side note the PHB Errata already does clarify that a beast can only get a second attack or multiattack. In a similar vein this errat also implies that contrary to sage advice, your beast cannot ordinarily use multi-attack and pounce (terrible as that would be).

I find the issue isn't so much the action economy as the relative scaling issues. It's not a problem that the beast is consuming actions so long as it's worthwhile

Things I'd like to see:
*My biggest gripe: Give pet abilities some kind of DC scaling. Most all the pet abilities have low DC's (11-12) that stronger monsters can often ignore. Maybe allow pet's to optionally use your spellcaster DC?

* Hunter's mark benefits beast, one of the main reasons your two attacks are better then the beast attacking, although if you get magic weapons you can still out-scale if your doing 2d6 extra damage per attack. (Not to mention other spells)


* More HP scaling (5 or 6 times you level instead of 4?)

[DanyBallon]

Things I'd like to see:
*My biggest gripe: Give pet abilities some kind of DC scaling. Most all the pet abilities have low DC's (11-12) that stronger monsters can often ignore. Maybe allow pet's to optionally use your spellcaster DC?
I'm away from book, but don't you add your proficiency bonus to DC as well? If not it would be an easy fix to implement.




* More HP scaling (5 or 6 times you level instead of 4?)

This could effectively help the companion survivability. maybe add to the 11th level feature that the companion HP are now 5x Ranger's level?

[Regulas]

I'm away from book, but don't you add your proficiency bonus to DC as well? If not it would be an easy fix to implement.


You add it to attacks/damage/AC and any proficient skills and saving throws. However that is simply the saving throws it uses to resist things. There is no mention of ability DC's/saves.

[DanyBallon]

To me, the balance point is simply this: a companion should not be inferior to a mount or familiar, but shouldn't increase the beast master's number of attacks or damage beyond what a hunter can achieve. The hunter gains other archetype features, such as whirlwind attack / volley shot. And of course the beast must be buffed (and, possibly, equipped) separately from the beast master. So I believe balancing damage for both, approximately, and letting each have their own separate pros and cons is most balanced.

Hence, I took extra attack away from the ranger. He can thus command his beast to attack up to once per round, or have it do something else. It will eventually gain an additional attack when it takes the attack action (prevents double multi attack from dire badger), and can make attacks of opportunity. Having this instead of extra attack and the hunter features, I believe, is reasonable.

That's why my proposed features added quality of life things, such as beast resurrection and changing its size, instead of extra combat options.

I think that the main difference between companion and familiar/mount, is that the companion get stronger as the ranger level up, which isn't the case with familiar and mounts. This may be one of the reason they limited its actions.

[Regulas]

I think that the main difference between companion and familiar/mount, is that the companion get stronger as the ranger level up, which isn't the case with familiar and mounts. This may be one of the reason they limited its actions.

The problem is that added strength often isn't enough especially at higher levels, and especially if you want to use any beasts other then panther or giant badger.

[Pope Scarface]

I get the impression that beast master ranger is the monk of 5E. Not due to relative effectiveness, but in frequency of forum threads on the topic of whether or not it sucks.

[DanyBallon]

The problem is that added strength often isn't enough especially at higher levels, and especially if you want to use any beasts other then panther or giant badger.

I agree, but the argument was that companion should have free action as familiar and mount because the later can act this way. But I was saying that you can't compare companion to familiar and mounts because companions level up with the ranger, and familiars and mounts don't.

As for, if the companion leveling is sufficient is anonther topic. They could definately get a boost at mid level, and I that Share Spell is a bit limited and come up too late.

[Easy_Lee]

Is anyone in this thread actually okay with the fact that familiars can use the help action, take the Dodge action, and so on for free, but a BM's companion can't?

[DanyBallon]

Is anyone in this thread actually okay with the fact that familiars can use the help action, take the Dodge action, and so on for free, but a BM's companion can't?

I am! Familiar are weak creature (very low HP, low AC) that don't stand a chance if they fare in close combat.

i.e. a raven familiar have 1 hp, AC 12, and +4 to hit, while a raven familiar (for a 3rd level ranger) will have 12 hp, AC 14, and +6 to hit, better skills and saving throws. Not exactly the same creature. And while the raven familiar will forever be the same, the raven companion will end up having 80 HP, AC 18, +10 to hit, etc.

So I don't mind if the familiar can use dodge or help as a free action and the companion can't. Like I said earlier, I want to try to give the companion the ability to be commanded to use those with a bonus action instead of an action.

[Easy_Lee]

I am! Familiar are weak creature (very low HP, low AC) that don't stand a chance if they fare in close combat.

i.e. a raven familiar have 1 hp, AC 12, and +4 to hit, while a raven familiar (for a 3rd level ranger) will have 12 hp, AC 14, and +6 to hit, better skills and saving throws. Not exactly the same creature. And while the raven familiar will forever be the same, the raven companion will end up having 80 HP, AC 18, +10 to hit, etc.

So I don't mind if the familiar can use dodge or help as a free action and the companion can't. Like I said earlier, I want to try to give the companion the ability to be commanded to use those with a bonus action instead of an action.

Trouble is the familiar can hide up a sleeve and do those things, and is easy to replace. Some of them are invisible, too.

But the bigger problem is that a familiar costs a level one spell. A mount can be bought or created with a spell. But a companion requires a dedicated archetype.

[Regulas]

I get the impression that beast master ranger is the monk of 5E. Not due to relative effectiveness, but in frequency of forum threads on the topic of whether or not it sucks.

Because like with some warlock stuff it's more just a poorly designed sub-class then raw underpowered, so you can sort of claim that it does "enough" power wise for defenders to defend it, despite being flawed.

[DanyBallon]

Trouble is the familiar can hide up a sleeve and do those things, and is easy to replace. Some of them are invisible, too.

From the available familiar list in the SRD (bat, cat, crab, frog (toad), hawk, lizard, octopus, owl, poisonous snake, fish (quipper), rat, raven, sea horse, spider, or weasel) all these creatures are available to the ranger as a companion. And any of them that can hide in a wizard's sleeve can do so in a ranger's sleeve...



But the bigger problem is that a familiar costs a level one spell. A mount can be bought or created with a spell. But a companion requires a dedicated archetype.

How is this a problem? they aren't as useful as a companion is.

[Malifice]

Easiest house rule: when the animal companion reaches 0, it goes unconscious. Not dead, just unconscious. No death saves or anything. Its not consistent, it does not make sense in terms of game mechanics, but it is easy and balances out the largest drawback instantly.

I use 'At the end of any encounter where a beast has been reduced to 0 HP, roll 1d6. On a result of anything other than a 1, the best wakes up on 1 HP. If you roll a 1, the beast dies.'

I also allow the Beast to recover all lost HP on a short rest (no hit dice or anything).

Its faster, less rolling, and just... works.

[Regulas]

How is this a problem? they aren't as useful as a companion is.

Because familiars can provide the help action for free notably. And do about any other function a companion could but for free. And is otherwise much more convenient. And companions often have such low HP they can only take 1 or 2 more hits then a familiar anyway, and then are really hard to replace. And they often don't do enough damage to make attacking worthwhile.

[Easy_Lee]

How is this a problem? they aren't as useful as a companion is.

If a companion could take all actions, besides attacking, for free, it would be equally useful compared with a familiar, if harder to kill. Being able to attack with it, it being harder to kill, those are the features which a companion has over a level 1 spell.

Instead of just gaining those features, the BM has to give up his own actions (and the archetype features he would otherwise have) in order for his companion to do something a familiar could do for free.

Edit: Besides, the beast's attacks are generally weaker than the player's, and it's save DCs don't scale. Any new options granted by the beast fade as one levels, save the potential for extra opportunity attacks. The only way around that is to cheese it and break BM by riding the companion, as I've discussed in detail before.

[DanyBallon]

Because familiars can provide the help action for free notably. And do about any other function a companion could but for free. And is otherwise much more convenient. And companions often have such low HP they can only take 1 or 2 more hits then a familiar anyway, and then are really hard to replace. And they often don't do enough damage to make attacking worthwhile.

Except that rogues can benefit from a companion in melee and the companion can deal damage, where as a familiar need to use the Help action to be useful. Also if the companion take one or two hits, that's less damage for the party members.

I agree that needing to spend your action to have your companion use help, disengage, dodge, dash and hide is quite limitative (and that's why we want to try some house rules regarding the use of those actions), but I far more prefer a companion over a familiar as far as utility goes.

[DanyBallon]

If a companion could take all actions, besides attacking, for free, it would be equally useful compared with a familiar, if harder to kill. Being able to attack with it, it being harder to kill, those are the features which a companion has over a level 1 spell.

Instead of just gaining those features, the BM has to give up his own actions (and the archetype features he would otherwise have) in order for his companion to do something a familiar could do for free.

Edit: Besides, the beast's attacks are generally weaker than the player's, and it's save DCs don't scale. Any new options granted by the beast fade as one levels, save the potential for extra opportunity attacks. The only way around that is to cheese it and break BM by riding the companion, as I've discussed in detail before.

There's only two level where the ranger's need to sacrifice it's action, as soon as he get extra attack he can both command his companion and make an attack. Granting most of the other actions as bonus action as I propose is, I think a good balancing factor for the power increase of having a companion that is roughly the equivalent of a 1st level spell that you can use rounds after rounds...

[Regulas]

There's only two level where the ranger's need to sacrifice it's action, as soon as he get extra attack he can both command his companion and make an attack. Granting most of the other actions as bonus action as I propose is, I think a good balancing factor for the power increase of having a companion that is roughly the equivalent of a 1st level spell that you can use rounds after rounds...

As noted the beasts attacks aren't really as great as what you can achieve yourself (for the majority of companions at least) especially if gods forbid you gain a magic weapon.

More critically though I'm going to repost what I said before:

Because like with some warlock stuff it's more just a poorly designed sub-class then raw underpowered, so you can sort of claim that it does "enough" power wise for defenders to defend it, despite severely being flawed.

[DanyBallon]

As noted the beasts attacks aren't really as great as what you can achieve yourself (for the majority of companions at least) especially if gods forbid you gain a magic weapon.

More critically though I'm going to repost what I said before:

Because like with some warlock stuff it's more just a poorly designed sub-class then raw underpowered, so you can sort of claim that it does "enough" power wise for defenders to defend it, despite severely being flawed.

I've never said it isn't flawed, but it's not as bad as some pretend it to be. There's some improvement that can be done, but it don't need the overhaul have seen so far.

[Easy_Lee]

Agreed with Regulas. We can go back and forth on the power, talking about magic items and buffs and specially crafted barding and whether or not the player's can expect to have this or that and on and on. I've done the math, and have come to the conclusion that the beast companion's DCs ought to scale, but that its attacks allow the beastmaster to do close to as much single-target damage as an unbuffed hunter with no magic.

That said...

The hunter gains defensive tactics, multiattack, and superior defensive tactics. These features cannot be killed easier than the hunter. And the hunter is hard to kill with his defensive features, and generally optimized for fighting many foes at once.

The BM, meanwhile, gains a feature at 7 that let's him command his beast to take dash, disengage, dodge, or help actions if he gives up his bonus. The familiar can do all of those freely. A mount can do three of those freely. At 11, instead of a multiattack, the BM's companion gains an extra attack, bringing the maximum number of attacks the BM can make on a turn up to the same number a level 5 dual wielding hunter can make in one (and far less than what volley attack can achieve, or a level 5 dual wielding hunter with horde breaker). By level 15, the BM can share buffs with his creature, but only if he casts them himself.

These features suck. Worst of all, they make little sense and don't feel right. The Beast master archetype, according to the book, "embodies a friendship between the civilized races and the beasts of the world." The features don't reflect that.

The companion ought to be a familiar but better. The features ought to be features, not the lifting of restrictions. WotC ought to have thought things through a little better than this.

[Regulas]

I've never said it isn't flawed, but it's not as bad as some pretend it to be. There's some improvement that can be done, but it don't need the overhaul have seen so far.

A lot of the severe looking changes actually have relatively minor effect on actual class power.

Also one of the problems is optimisation versus average. Beastmaster is a lot more acceptable when you explicitly optimise it, but not when you just pick any of the other choices that should be valid, for example a lot of beasts that you should be able to take are just blatently sub-par, with the only decent ones having to do mostly with them have unique special abilities that happen to be significantly stronger then the average for there CR.

[DanyBallon]

I agree that arguing over the power of the class is futile, as we both have different view of the beastmaster.

Also, what I'm trying to do is to improve the appeal of the beastmaster, without breaking action economy, or having to rewrite the class form scratch. Because if we want to see a revised beastmaster, without seeing a 5.5e book, you need to be able to modify the text without altering the page formating, so this mean keeping roughly the same word count.

[MeeposFire]

I'm away from book, but don't you add your proficiency bonus to DC as well? If not it would be an easy fix to implement.




This could effectively help the companion survivability. maybe add to the 11th level feature that the companion HP are now 5x Ranger's level?

I actually add the rangers wisdom mod to the base HP per level minimum that they get (so if you have wisdom bonus of +3 the pet would have HP minimum of 7xranger level). Gives rangers more reason to be wise. I consider it a strengthening of their mystic bond. If you think that is slightly too high adjust the base down one or two points and the wisdom bonus can still compensate for "typical" rangers.

For my beast companions I also allow them to copy basic movement options if the ranger does them (if the ranger dashes so does the beast if desired but if the ranger is not he can still command the beast to do so at its normal cost). The companion also gets commanded to attack via the rangers attack action and it costs the ranger one attack to do so. This gives two weapon rangers a slight benefit as they can still attack even at low levels while the beast atacks and can get multiple strikes at higher levels.

There are a few other changes but those area few key changes I have made that do not alter things too much IMO.

[DanyBallon]

I actually add the rangers wisdom mod to the base HP per level minimum that they get (so if you have wisdom bonus of +3 the pet would have HP minimum of 7xranger level). Gives rangers more reason to be wise. I consider it a strengthening of their mystic bond. If you think that is slightly too high adjust the base down one or two points and the wisdom bonus can still compensate for "typical" rangers.


That's a great idea!!! I might steal it :)

[MrFahrenheit]

For everyone bashing the higher level beastmaster for having to give up its bonus action to command the companion to help/dash, etc.: will the hunter always be using his bonus action every single round like the beastmaster? It's not like he's prepping lightning arrow each turn (limited slots), and if he's a crossbow ranger, then odds are he's taken crossbow expert to get around the loading property of the weapon...and if he hasn't, he's arguably making less optimal use of his bonus action, though it's better than not using it at all.

[Naanomi]

Wisdom Mod to HP? My beastmaster was a Water Gensai using Shillelagh... his crab would rock 180 HP with his already impressive AC, quite the survivable grapple/control engine

[Regulas]

For everyone bashing the higher level beastmaster for having to give up its bonus action to command the companion to help/dash, etc.: will the hunter always be using his bonus action every single round like the beastmaster? It's not like he's prepping lightning arrow each turn (limited slots), and if he's a crossbow ranger, then odds are he's taken crossbow expert to get around the loading property of the weapon...and if he hasn't, he's arguably making less optimal use of his bonus action, though it's better than not using it at all.

It's not the be all end all but it's just yet another factor that helps to make the difference. The key point of why they focus on it is not that your giving up your bonus action, but that your giving up your bonus action to be able to do less.

[MrFahrenheit]

I'm not arguing that BM DPR > hunter's DPR. But as far as versatility and usefulness, the companion providing help each round for all party members means that a party with BM's DPR > party with a hunter's DPR instead. I don't think most players would have a problem with making the most of the action economy.

And yeah, when the party has to run from battle, it's "sorry, wolfy," but by the (usually) next long rest there's a new companion providing the same services.

[Easy_Lee]

I agree that arguing over the power of the class is futile, as we both have different view of the beastmaster.

Also, what I'm trying to do is to improve the appeal of the beastmaster, without breaking action economy, or having to rewrite the class form scratch. Because if we want to see a revised beastmaster, without seeing a 5.5e book, you need to be able to modify the text without altering the page formating, so this mean keeping roughly the same word count.

I'll take a crack at it.

Choose a beast no higher than CR 1/4. By performing a one hour ritual, you may make this beast your companion. You may repeat this ritual with another CR 1/4 or below beast if you release the first or it dies.

Add your proficiency bonus to its base AC, attack rolls, damage rolls, and its proficient skills and saving throws. Add four times your ranger level to its HP total, adjusting as you gain levels. Replace save DCs for any special abilities the beast possess with your own spell DC.

The beast obeys your commands and acts on your initiative. You command your beast verbally, and it can take any action it normally could. Additionally, while traveling through your favored terrain with only your beast, you may move stealthily at a normal pace. However, as a result of the dedicated training needed to maintain your connection to the beast, you cannot use the extra attack feature while you have a beast master companion.

As an action, you may magically change your beast companion's size to small or medium. This does not affect its stats, other than size and weight. You may dismiss this effect as a bonus action.

Level 7: Your mind is magically linked to your beast companion's. You can command it mentally from any range. It knows what you know and vice versa.

Level 11: Your body is now magically linked to your beast companion's. It gains the Extra Attack feature. If your beast dies, you may resurrect it as a one hour ritual. You need its body to do so. If you are the target of a spell, you may choose for that spell to also target your beast companion if it is within 30' of you.

Level 15: you may cast the spell Awaken as an eight hour ritual, but only targeting your companion.


There you go. This BM's single target damage is comparable to a hunter's, and its multi-target damage and defense are still far weaker. However, it has new and interesting features which all revolve around having two bodies to work with, much like a chain pact warlock. The number of attacks per round is pretty close to the same as the current, except that now the BM can benefit from two weapon fighting if he chooses without losing his beast's attack. Most of the features I added are non-combat. I even fixed a barding exploit by specifying base AC.

Edit: made some small, clarifying changes, as per feedback.

[Regulas]

I'm not arguing that BM DPR > hunter's DPR. But as far as versatility and usefulness, the companion providing help each round for all party members means that a party with BM's DPR > party with a hunter's DPR instead. I don't think most players would have a problem with making the most of the action economy.

And yeah, when the party has to run from battle, it's "sorry, wolfy," but by the (usually) next long rest there's a new companion providing the same services.

Help only benefits one person not the whole party (which a familiar can do completely for free).

[DanyBallon]

I'll take a crack at it.

Choose a beast no higher than CR 1/4. By performing a one hour ritual, you may make this beast your companion. You may repeat this ritual with another CR 1/4 or below beast if you release the first or it dies.

Add your proficiency bonus to its base AC, attack rolls, damage rolls, and its proficient skills and saving throws. Add four times your ranger level to its HP total, adjusting as you gain levels. Replace save DCs for any special abilities the beast possess with your own spell DC.

The beast obeys your commands and acts on your initiative. However, as a result of the dedicated training needed to maintain your connection to the beast, you cannot use the extra attack feature while you have a beast master companion. Additionally, while traveling through your favored terrain with only your beast, you may move stealthily at a normal pace.

As an action, you may magically change your beast companion's size to small or medium. This does not affect its stats, other than size and weight. You may dismiss this effect as a bonus action.

Level 7: Your mind is magically linked to your beast companion's. You can command it mentally from any range. It knows what you know and vice versa.

Level 11: Your body is now magically linked to your beast companion's. It gains the Extra Attack feature. If your beast dies, you may resurrect it as a one hour ritual. You need its body to do so. If you are the target of a spell, you may choose for that spell to also target your beast companion if it is within 30' of you.

Level 15: you may cast the spell Awaken as an eight hour ritual, but only targeting your companion.


There you go. This BM's single target damage is comparable to a hunter's. It has new and interesting features which all revolve around having two bodies to work with, much like a chain pact warlock. The number of attacks per round is pretty much the same as the current, except at levels 3 and 4, except that now the BM can benefit from two weapon fighting if he chooses without losing his beast's attack. Most of the features I added are non-combat. I even fixed a barding exploit by specifying base AC.

Nice! I don't see any changes about using your action to command your companion, it should at least be mentioned that you may command your companion as a free action, if it's what your looking for.

As a side note, why not just add your proficiency bonus to save DCs? This way it will work the same as for AC, attack, skills, ST, etc.

[Easy_Lee]

Nice! I don't see any changes about using your action to command your companion, it should at least be mentioned that you may command your companion as a free action, if it's what your looking for.

As a side not, why not just add your proficiency bonus to save DCs? This way it will work the same as for AC, attack, skills, ST, etc.

Give the ranger a reason to be wise =)

[Naanomi]

I don't like that 'magically shrink it'; it seems even more 'gamey' than the action economy stuff. Make Pokemon Master a different class, Rangers should be more 'natural' than that overall

[Stan]

I think that 3.5 gave rangers and druids practically a 2nd character and 5e designers over reacted toning it down.
Yes, it's also poorly written and open to interpretation - a reasonable DM gives the beast animal intelligence to do things like follow you if you dash.

How about if it takes an action to change the beast's action, which it then keeps doing if applicable? So you say "go attack that guy" or "help Susan" or whatever and they go until that guy is dead or something else makes the command no longer apply. On the turn of the command, you lose your action to give the beast a weaker action. But you should make up for it in later rounds. To me, this is more inline with a trained attack animal would actually do.

Also either death saving throws or automatically reappearing fresh after a long rest so they don't participate in ~2 battles/week.

[djreynolds]

Think of yourself as a K9 cop.

I went ranger and grabbed polearm master and sentinel, strength based build. My beast attacked and I hurt people trying to attack him. For some reason, it drives the DM nuts and everyone wants to swipe at this creature. Also stuff like conjure barrage or lightning arrow can be used with a hand axe or dagger. Bonus action, cast lighting dagger, throw and then send in your beast. If he dies, well now you have your two attacks back, and you can just get another beast.

Also the beast levels up on your character level, so grabbing some cleric levels for heavy armor and some interesting spells is an option.

If you look at your party as a pool of hit points, every eight hours a 5th level ranger can grab an extra 20 HP for the party, kinda cruel to look at it like that, but such is the law of nature.

And while in the woods, you can ditch the wolf and grab an owl, and have it fly around and scout for you.

[Giant2005]

Is anyone in this thread actually okay with the fact that familiars can use the help action, take the Dodge action, and so on for free, but a BM's companion can't?

I am - mainly because that is a feature that would never be used anyway.
You would have to be insane to choose your subclass on the basis of having it do something that you could do with a level 1 spell. That is just far too greater cost. Any round where you had your companion take the dodge or help actions instead of attacking is a round where you are admitting to yourself that you are playing the wrong class.

Having said that, I wouldn't object to the companion having those abilities due to those same grounds - it simply wouldn't make a difference to the class at all.

[MaxWilson]

Hello everyone,

I've been running a 5th edition game since it first came out and as my current campaign is coming to an end one of my players has offered to run a short campaign to give me a chance to sit on the other side of the screen while I prepare my next campaign.

Anyways the player has asked u to make non optimized level 7 characters for this game. And my first thought was a hill dwarf Beast master ranger with the guild Artisan (a brew master). Who uses solely hand axes and his giant toad animal companion.

My question is how bad are the beast masters? Will I be hurting the group with this choice. I know non optimized doesn't mean worthless so I want a character who is fun to role play and useful to the group with not being too powerful.

I've experienced a mountain dwarf hunter ranger and that was very optimized as it duel wielded axes and carved up every enemy in it's path so I want to avoid that combo.

I think that's the wrong question to ask, really. The right question is, are beast masters really that fun? Do they deliver the experience that the player is looking for? Anecdotal evidence suggests that beastmasters are just fine for those who basically want a clever dog or wolf who can do tricks and occasionally pitch in with combat; they're also pretty decent for those who are willing to use the beast as a disposable combat meatshield on whatever happens to be the most effective chassis (e.g. Mage Armored flying snake under cover of Fog Cloud spell) while the ranger pitches in with occasionally extra attacks using e.g. Net to restrain.

But those who read "beastmaster" and think, "Yeah! I want to tame a lion!" are doomed to disappointment under RAW. Much less if they want a Tyrannosaurus.

I recently added a house rule: Beastmasters can tame any beast that an equivalent-level Moon Druid can wildshape into. It's generated some interest but so far no takers, which to me is a signal that it's not an overpowered option.

Again, the question is, "What is the Beastmaster's niche, and what does it take to adequately fulfill that role?" Don't be afraid to tweak it for your table.

=======================


Also the beast levels up on your character level, so grabbing some cleric levels for heavy armor and some interesting spells is an option.

If you look at your party as a pool of hit points, every eight hours a 5th level ranger can grab an extra 20 HP for the party, kinda cruel to look at it like that, but such is the law of nature.

The beast only gains HP based on ranger level. It does gain bonuses based on proficiency bonus, which increased based on total level not ranger level, but taking a level of cleric won't show any immediate gains for the beast. Obviously the heavy armor does show immediate gains for the ranger though.

As far as the "every eight hours grab a fresh one," that's only if you have a ready supply of wolves. (Also, is it really only eight hours to train a new companion? AFB but I thought it was twelve.) For many animals, acquiring one will take more time than training them will.

[djreynolds]

Cleric is a sweet dip, some good spells there to supplement your known spells.

The real issue is this, what does the hunter bring versus a single combatant that you don't once your beast is dead. The hunter can be tailored to fighting or at least defend themselves versus a lone opponent. Once the beastmaster loses his beast, he needs something else. What if your beast died, you got hunter stuff of the equivalent level until you obtain a new beast? And say until you find a new beast you acquire levels of exhaustion until you do.

[MrFahrenheit]

Help only benefits one person not the whole party (which a familiar can do completely for free).

It benefits another party member, which is the same thing in my book. And sure, a familiar could do the same for free, but with an almost guaranteed one shot kill at later levels,and a whole lot less versatility overall. And what would the familiar-wielding caster be doing with his/her bonus action every single round anyhow? As mentioned before, this is what really renders the "it sucks because it uses your bonus action" argument irrelevant IMO.

[MaxWilson]

Cleric is a sweet dip, some good spells there to supplement your known spells.

The real issue is this, what does the hunter bring versus a single combatant that you don't once your beast is dead. The hunter can be tailored to fighting or at least defend themselves versus a lone opponent. Once the beastmaster loses his beast, he needs something else. What if your beast died, you got hunter stuff of the equivalent level until you obtain a new beast? And say until you find a new beast you acquire levels of exhaustion until you do.

Eh. Versus a single opponent, the hunter doesn't actually bring much to the table. Most of the good ranger stuff is on the base chassis, equally available to beastmasters. A hunter versus a single opponent will be, what, 10-15% more effective than a beastless beastmaster? Not more than that.

[djreynolds]

Eh. Versus a single opponent, the hunter doesn't actually bring much to the table. Most of the good ranger stuff is on the base chassis, equally available to beastmasters. A hunter versus a single opponent will be, what, 10-15% more effective than a beastless beastmaster? Not more than that.

But it is something. And that's the thing, once that beast is dead you have to waste a 3rd of the adventuring day. Stoneskin comes a little to late for me.

I would like to try warding bond on a beast, and its only 3 levels of cleric for that and could come much earlier than stoneskin would and isn't concentration either. Throw in the aid spell as well and bless and now your beast is doing alright. And you wouldn't even have to be close to being a 15th level ranger.

And archery style is potent, regardless of multiclassing and all that. Our main damage dealer is our ranger with his sharpshooter.

[Vogonjeltz]

My question is how bad are the beast masters? Will I be hurting the group with this choice. I know non optimized doesn't mean worthless so I want a character who is fun to role play and useful to the group with not being too powerful.

Beastmasters are actually near the top end of the DPR spectrum.

The two knocks against them are that some players feel like it's odd to substitute the Beasts action for their own when the commands are noted as being verbal, and that the action to attack must be repeated each round (i.e. Why wouldn't the companion just continue attacking until told otherwise?)

But rest assured, you'll probably be doing substantially more damage than any counterpart.

By the way, the Giant Toad is a ridiculously good beast who's challenge rating (1) well exceeds the allowed CR (1/4). He'll be outdamaging your teammates by a truly absurd margin.


And yes I went for the frog for the ability to swallow small creatures. I doubt it'll be effective often but it should be fun to try.

Ah, earlier you said Toad. Horse of a different color.


At higher levels, the companion becomes less of a target, as its damage scales poorly so it won't be attacking as much

The animal companion has more bonus damage than a raging Barbarian at all levels. It does not scale poorly.

[Specter]

Wisdom Mod to HP? My beastmaster was a Water Gensai using Shillelagh... his crab would rock 180 HP with his already impressive AC, quite the survivable grapple/control engine

Sweet baby jesus, never thought of water genasi + giant crab, would look awesome!

[Tanarii]

Edit: Besides, the beast's attacks are generally weaker than the player's, and it's save DCs don't scale. Any new options granted by the beast fade as one levels, save the potential for extra opportunity attacks. The only way around that is to cheese it and break BM by riding the companion, as I've discussed in detail before.You've got this back to front. A Beasts attack is usually considerably stronger than a single attack from a BM Ranger, who will usually be a S&B/Defensive Style build, using Ensnaring Strike for control. Unless you go 2H weapon/Sentinel.

Let's take a Wolf for example:
Ranger 3: Dex 16, +5 to hit, 1d8+3 damage, DPR ~4.875
Wolf @ 3: +6 to hit, 2d4+4 damage, advantage, ~7.56
Ranger 5: Dex 18, +7 to hit, 1d8+4 damage, ~5.525
Wolf @ 5: +7 to hit, 2d4+5 damage, advantage, ~8.775
Ranger 13: Dex 20, +9 to hit, 1d8+5 damage, ~5.7
Wolf @ 13: +8 to hit, 2d4+6, advantage, ~8.7725

A Beastmaster Ranger could close the gap by using Hunter's Mark, but why would he want to waste a spell on that when he can get better DPR using his beast, and use the spell slot (and more importantly, spell known) for Ensnaring Strike instead?

[Easy_Lee]

You've got this back to front. A Beasts attack is usually considerably stronger than a single attack from a BM Ranger, who will usually be a S&B/Defensive Style build, using Ensnaring Strike for control. Unless you go 2H weapon/Sentinel.

Let's take a Wolf for example:
Ranger 3: Dex 16, +5 to hit, 1d8+3 damage, DPR ~4.875
Wolf @ 3: +6 to hit, 2d4+4 damage, advantage, ~7.56
Ranger 5: Dex 18, +7 to hit, 1d8+4 damage, ~5.525
Wolf @ 5: +7 to hit, 2d4+5 damage, advantage, ~8.775
Ranger 13: Dex 20, +9 to hit, 1d8+5 damage, ~5.7
Wolf @ 13: +8 to hit, 2d4+6, advantage, ~8.7725

A Beastmaster Ranger could close the gap by using Hunter's Mark, but why would he want to waste a spell on that when he can get better DPR using his beast, and use the spell slot (and more importantly, spell known) for Ensnaring Strike instead?

That's an example of the ranger adapting his play style around the beast, rather than the beast contributing to his play style.

Compare the Champion features which grant more crits, half prof to non proficient physical checks, an extra fighting style, and healing. Those features are relevant for any possible play style a fighter might choose.

The beast master, however, has to carefully pick features, spells, and a style which works with the beast. He can't dual wield or use crossbow expert or polearm mastery, for example, because the bonus attack can't be used in the same round as he commands his beast.

The beast can be made somewhat effective at certain levels with specific builds. But that does not mean the archetype is designed well.

[Tanarii]

That's an example of the ranger adapting his play style around the beast, rather than the beast contributing to his play style.S&B Rangers using Defensive styles are a valid and supported Rangers build using their base Armor & Weapon Proficiency, and one (or two if they want to go Dueling) of their available Fighting Styles.

It's the play-style the Beast Master is designed to support not being ones that many Rangers players don't seem to prefer. That is all. Just as the Hunter works well with a style of play emphasizing damage output, ie Archery & TWF styles. The Beastmaster emphasizes zone denial (2 creatures that get OAs and fill a square) and more defensive build that go along with it.

[Easy_Lee]

S&B Rangers using Defensive styles are a valid and supported Rangers build using their base Armor & Weapon Proficiency, and one (or two if they want to go Dueling) of their available Fighting Styles.

It's the play-style the Beast Master is designed to support not being ones that many Rangers players don't seem to prefer. That is all. Just as the Hunter works well with a style of play emphasizing damage output, ie Archery & TWF styles. The Beastmaster emphasizes zone denial (2 creatures that get OAs and fill a square) and more defensive build that go along with it.

My point still stands. The beast is the only creature, in all of 5e, which one must spend one's own actions and bonus actions to command. This prevents the beast master from using a wide variety of features and tactics, including dual wielding, and makes the archetype weaker, more finicky, less effective, and inconsistent with the rest of fifth edition.

If you're okay with those things, I have no words for you. I am not okay with those things. And enough players agree with me, just going off of this thread and the Google results for 5e beast master, that perhaps arguing about it is not worth our time.

[Xetheral]

S&B Rangers using Defensive styles are a valid and supported Rangers build using their base Armor & Weapon Proficiency, and one (or two if they want to go Dueling) of their available Fighting Styles.

It's the play-style the Beast Master is designed to support not being ones that many Rangers players don't seem to prefer. That is all. Just as the Hunter works well with a style of play emphasizing damage output, ie Archery & TWF styles. The Beastmaster emphasizes zone denial (2 creatures that get OAs and fill a square) and more defensive build that go along with it.

Even if you have correctly interpreted the design intent behind the class (and I'm not convinced you have), your acknowledgement that the "intended" playstyle is one "that many ranger players don't seem to prefer" is sufficient to demonstrate that the subclass is problematic. In other words, if the subclass doesn't support the preferred playstyle of many people who want to play the class, the subclass is not well-designed.

[DanyBallon]

Even if you have correctly interpreted the design intent behind the class (and I'm not convinced you have), your acknowledgement that the "intended" playstyle is one "that many ranger players don't seem to prefer" is sufficient to demonstrate that the subclass is problematic. In other words, if the subclass doesn't support the preferred playstyle of many people who want to play the class, the subclass is not well-designed.

And what would believe be the design intent of the Ranger class?

The way I read it, the Ranger is part nature skill monkey and wilderness fighter, and is the class that most focus on the exploration pillar of the game. They have potent fighting capability due to HD, armor and weapon proficiencies. The Hunter archetype is more combat oriented. On the other hand, the Beastmaster is all about versatility, as the companion can be useful to track, scout, help out in combat. They fill completely different roles yet people try to fit the beastmaster exclusively into a combat oriented build.

[Leith]

This is confusing to me.
Beastmasters deal more consistent damage and sometimes more damage per attack than hunters. They create an additional zone of control in combat and an additional target (which is never bad and usually good). They add an additional 50% of the rangers hp to the party. They have utility benefits coming out of their ears.
Why are they bad?
Action economy is an odd argument too cuz familiars are practically useless in a fight unless you're a warlock. Warlocks have to give up an attack to have their familiar's attack too. The only thing a hunter, wizard, or warlock is going to use their bonus action for anyway is casting a spell which the beastmaster can also do. This doesn't negate the benefit of having the beast, it just means the beast takes a round off from doing just one of the things it does to help you. Besides which, why would you want the beast to 'help'? Attacking is so much more useful since it does more damage than you do. Unless you use magic. Which you can still do if you just tell it to attack.
Then there's the 'what if' of your beast going down. Well, 'what if' all those attacks that hit your wolf friend hit you? That would suck, right? Especially since your beast usually ends up with about half as many hp as the ranger. There is something to be said about never ever losing any of your combat effectiveness unless the DM forces you, but since beastmasters seem to be better than a hunter at everything while their beast is alive... I don't see how it matters.
It just seems like a question of how you wanna play your ranger.

[Tanarii]

My point still stands.No it doesn't. Your point is you have to play a style you apparently don't like to get the most out of the class, and that's somehow a failing.

My point is each of the different subclasses effectively supports a different play-style. One a play-style you appear to like, and one you don't.

[Tanarii]

Even if you have correctly interpreted the design intent behind the class (and I'm not convinced you have), your acknowledgement that the "intended" playstyle is one "that many ranger players don't seem to prefer" is sufficient to demonstrate that the subclass is problematic. In other words, if the subclass doesn't support the preferred playstyle of many people who want to play the class, the subclass is not well-designed.Arguable. The fact that many players like offensive combat-oriented builds doesn't necessarily mean it should be the only option available. Especially since the class base chassis itself is designed to support tactical control/defensive builds.

[MaxWilson]

You've got this back to front. A Beasts attack is usually considerably stronger than a single attack from a BM Ranger, who will usually be a S&B/Defensive Style build, using Ensnaring Strike for control. Unless you go 2H weapon/Sentinel.

I question that "usually". What's your basis?

If I were playing a Beastmaster I'd be a Sharpshooter, (1) to cover ranged scenarios, which my beast otherwise has trouble with; and (2) because beasts and nets go well together (beastmaster is the only class besides EK that can at-will get both a net attack and a regular attack in the same turn) and Sharpshooter removes the net range disadvantage.

It's hard to imagine making a sword-and-shield ranger. Not to say that you couldn't do it, but that makes it especially surprising to hear a claim that that will be the "usual" build.

Also, Ensnaring Strike is an okay use of your concentration and first-level spell slots, but Spike Growth and Conjure Animals are often better uses of your concentration.

[Tanarii]

I question that "usually". What's your basis?It's designed to support builds that emphasize things other than maximizing the Ranger's personal DPS output.

That said:

If I were playing a Beastmaster I'd be a Sharpshooter, (1) to cover ranged scenarios, which my beast otherwise has trouble with; and (2) because beasts and nets go well together (beastmaster is the only class besides EK that can at-will get both a net attack and a regular attack in the same turn) and Sharpshooter removes the net range disadvantage.Yep. That takes advantage of something other than maximizing your personal DPS output as well: you're covering long range and nearby range (the beast) attacks. Just as a melee ranger has the advantage of being in two places at once to make attacks. ie similar reasoning.


It's hard to imagine making a sword-and-shield ranger. Not to say that you couldn't do it, but that makes it especially surprising to hear a claim that that will be the "usual" build.Not sure why it's hard to imagine. They have both Dueling and Defense Fighting Styles, as well as Shield Proficiency.


Also, Ensnaring Strike is an okay use of your concentration and first-level spell slots, but Spike Growth and Conjure Animals are often better uses of your concentration.Sure, especially Spike Growth. But that's true comparing them to Hunter's Mark as well, given the end goal of control as opposed to damage.

[Easy_Lee]

No it doesn't. Your point is you have to play a style you apparently don't like to get the most out of the class, and that's somehow a failing.

My point is each of the different subclasses effectively supports a different play-style. One a play-style you appear to like, and one you don't.

You didn't address the rest of my post. Please prove me wrong on these points.

The beast companion is the only creature, from familiars to mounts to summons, which requires its master to give up actions to command. This is inconsistent with the rest of 5e.
A ranger who chooses to dual wield, be a polearm master, or be a crossbow expert completely loses the primary benefits of those abilities on any turn that he uses his beast companion. This severely and arbitrarily limits possible play styles; it doesn't just make some play styles better.

If you can't prove me wrong on both of the points above, then my argument still stands. That doesn't mean you have to agree with me, only that you can't dismiss me.

[Tanarii]

You didn't address the rest of my post. Please prove me wrong on these points.I don't accept the validity of your argument underlying the points that your preferred play-style is right, and other play-styles are wrong. But since you insist:


The beast companion is the only creature, from familiars to mounts to summons, which requires its master to give up actions to command.So what? I don't see a problem here.


A ranger who chooses to dual wield, be a polearm master, or be a crossbow expert completely loses the primary benefits of those abilities on any turn that he uses his beast companion.Yes. So what? I don't see a problem here.


If you can't prove me wrong on both of the points above, then my argument still stands. That doesn't mean you have to agree with me, only that you can't dismiss me.You don't have an argument. You're making points that aren't points. I can dismiss that, because there isn't an argument to be had based on them.

[Xetheral]

And what would believe be the design intent of the Ranger class?

I simply don't agree with Tanarii that:
It's [S&B] the play-style the Beast Master is designed to support not being ones that many Rangers players don't seem to prefer. That is all. Just as the Hunter works well with a style of play emphasizing damage output, ie Archery & TWF styles. The Beastmaster emphasizes zone denial (2 creatures that get OAs and fill a square) and more defensive build that go along with it.

I infer from the class mechanics that it is designed to support all of the combat styles given to the Ranger class, for both subclasses.

__________


Arguable. The fact that many players like offensive combat-oriented builds doesn't necessarily mean it should be the only option available.

I never said that offensive combat-oriented builds should be the only option available. I instead said that, if (as you claim) many players want Beastmasters to support an offensive combat-oriented style, then designing the Beastmaster subclass to only support S&B style (as you claim is the design intent, see above) would be a poor design choice.


Especially since the class base chassis itself is designed to support tactical control/defensive builds.

Do you have any extrinsic evidence (such as designer interviews or commentary) to back up your assertions of the design intent? Because if you're just inferring the design intent from the mechanics themselves, then your interpretation is no more privileged than those who interpret the intent differently than you do. In such a case, continuing to offer up your assertions regarding design intent as support for your larger argument isn't particularly persuasive.

Regardless, even if you *are* right regarding the intent, I still believe that designing the class so as to exclude the preferred playstyle of "many ranger players" would be a poor design choice.

[Easy_Lee]

You don't have an argument. You're making points that aren't points. I can dismiss that, because there isn't an argument to be had based on them.

This discussion has devolved into nuh-uh, yeah-huh territory. One might look up the definition of argument and decide from it whether I have one. But I've learned, from experience, that the moment the dictionary comes out, it's time to move on.

[Tanarii]

I simply don't agree with Tanarii that:


This discussion has devolved into nuh-uh, yeah-huh territory.Indeed it has. But that was my point. I thought your original point was based on "you think so, therefore you're right". Xetheral takes issue with my stance on the same basis. I'm fine with that though. Really, that's not all that uncommon in forum arguments.

Because when it comes down to if someone considers the Ranger Beastmaster good or bad, from what I can see it comes almost entirely down to personal preferences.

[Vogonjeltz]

That's an example of the ranger adapting his play style around the beast, rather than the beast contributing to his play style.

Compare the Champion features which grant more crits, half prof to non proficient physical checks, an extra fighting style, and healing. Those features are relevant for any possible play style a fighter might choose.

The beast master, however, has to carefully pick features, spells, and a style which works with the beast. He can't dual wield or use crossbow expert or polearm mastery, for example, because the bonus attack can't be used in the same round as he commands his beast.

The beast can be made somewhat effective at certain levels with specific builds. But that does not mean the archetype is designed well.

This is less an indictment of the Beastmaster as being restrained than it is praise of the Champion's total flexibility.

Many classes (and subclasses) would be advised to customize playstyle based around their features.

All Rogues have the same "problem" as the Beastmaster because they have Cunning Action for hiding;
Eldritch Knights likewise because of War Magic and Valor Bards from Battle Magic
Berserkers the same from Frenzy, Totem Warriors ditto if they pick Eagle or Wolf totems

The list goes on and on with combat options or spell choices or features that don't play well with others. Champion might just be the lone exception that proves the rule here.

[mgshamster]

This is less an indictment of the Beastmaster as being restrained than it is praise of the Champion's total flexibility.

Many classes (and subclasses) would be advised to customize playstyle based around their features.

All Rogues have the same "problem" as the Beastmaster because they have Cunning Action for hiding;
Eldritch Knights likewise because of War Magic and Valor Bards from Battle Magic
Berserkers the same from Frenzy, Totem Warriors ditto if they pick Eagle or Wolf totems

The list goes on and on with combat options or spell choices or features that don't play well with others. Champion might just be the lone exception that proves the rule here.

I thought that the complaint about bonus actions conflicting with feats was an odd one. Especially if we exclusively criticize the beastmaster for it, but ignore that many other classes have the same problem.

[Specter]

I believe the point was that instead of getting improvements to the beast, Beastmaster just makes it usable later on. I kinda agree.

What I would have is the return of the only thing 3.5 did right: the Ranger's animal companion. HP increases as is, but the beast loses your proficiency bonus goodness to act on its own, learning tricks like fetching and ambushing along the way. It was solid, and I see no reason why it woulfn't be now.

[Vogonjeltz]

I believe the point was that instead of getting improvements to the beast, Beastmaster just makes it usable later on. I kinda agree.

What I would have is the return of the only thing 3.5 did right: the Ranger's animal companion. HP increases as is, but the beast loses your proficiency bonus goodness to act on its own, learning tricks like fetching and ambushing along the way. It was solid, and I see no reason why it woulfn't be now.

Beast has its own reaction, ideal use is to place the beast between yourself and an enemy, forcing the subject to suffer the powered up opportunity attack to try and get to another target. Given that the companions have better AC, and improved hp, it might not be worth most enemies time to try and wail on the animal while ignoring the party, but ignoring the beast means taking a lot more damage. Win-win for the beastmaster no matter what the foe tries.

[Tanarii]

I thought that the complaint about bonus actions conflicting with feats was an odd one. Especially if we exclusively criticize the beastmaster for it, but ignore that many other classes have the same problem.

Actually, despite my claim that it's a play style thing, the one thing that's weird is that using your beast to attack (arguably) makes a TWF bonus action off-hand attack impossible. Because you don't use your attack action to trigger it.

If interpreted that way (and it's an arguable interpretation) that isn't just a conflict between optional feats, or choosing to power up your own personal attacks, or comparison to other classes features (familiars). It's between a Ranger fighting style being useable at all and the archetype feature.

[Xetheral]

Actually, despite my claim that it's a play style thing, the one thing that's weird is that using your beast to attack (arguably) makes a TWF bonus action off-hand attack impossible. Because you don't use your attack action to trigger it.

If interpreted that way (and it's an arguable interpretation) that isn't just a conflict between optional feats, or choosing to power up your own personal attacks, or comparison to other classes features (familiars). It's between a Ranger fighting style being useable at all and the archetype feature.

I houserule to permit it, but I have a hard time seeing how this one is arguable in AL or other RAW games--you aren't taking the Attack Action, and I see no way around it. Which part are you interpreting as arguable? That TWF doesn't require the Attack Action or that ordering your beast to attack after level 5 counts as taking the Attack Action?

Also, another weird thing... you only add your Ranger's proficiency modifier to saves the beast is already proficient in. Since no beasts are proficient with any saves, that makes the bonus useless. Here's a tweet (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/725177930402398209?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) from Crawford confirming it.

[DwarvenGM]

Ah, earlier you said Toad. Horse of a different color.

Yeah sorry I didn't have my book on me at the time and mixed up the toad and the frog.

But it'll be a frog.

I'm liking the idea of a more control focused ranger I was considering duel wielding hand axes but I'm seeing from the discussion here how big a deal the bonus action command is... hmmm maybe a crossbow might be better.

[Pex]

In my group the beastmaster ranger has an owl. Its mainly for flavor text, but the DM has allowed her to use it as a scout of sorts. She uses speak with animals. It's almost like a familiar. Mainly her shtick is just being an archer with Sharpshooter and Hunter's Mark with a minor in emergency healing. Her subclass is almost irrelevant, in my observational but not judgmental intending opinion. She's having fun with it, and no one in the group is complaining.

[Regulas]

The animal companion has more bonus damage than a raging Barbarian at all levels. It does not scale poorly.

? The animal companion cannot compete with any PC's attack damage in anyway unless you ban feats and magic items multiclassing... probably need to ban some classes entirely..., and even then it still would be slightly sub-par....



Unrelated:
I always find it so weird how readily there are those random fans that are determined to defend something that is obviously problematic (I assume out of affection for it). I used to a love an old rusted beat-up car, that doesn't change the fact that it's old rusted and beat up.

[Waffle_Iron]

You can acquire Help every round by using a familiar, which you can get through a feat and don't have to spend your bonus action to command.

You can help two allies if you have a beast and a familiar.

[RickAllison]

You can help two allies if you have a beast and a familiar.

Just go whole-ham! Bard 6 (or Paladin 3/Warlock 3) and have your intelligent steed, your familiar, and your companion!

[Belac93]

You can help two allies if you have a beast and a familiar.

Well, you can also do this as a mastermind rogue.

Not really sure what my point is though.

[MaxWilson]

I houserule to permit it, but I have a hard time seeing how this one is arguable in AL or other RAW games--you aren't taking the Attack Action, and I see no way around it. Which part are you interpreting as arguable? That TWF doesn't require the Attack Action or that ordering your beast to attack after level 5 counts as taking the Attack Action?

Also, another weird thing... you only add your Ranger's proficiency modifier to saves the beast is already proficient in. Since no beasts are proficient with any saves, that makes the bonus useless. Here's a tweet (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/725177930402398209?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) from Crawford confirming it.

Someone should have asked him a more direct question: "Is it intentional that this feature is inoperative for all legal published animals? Was it added purely as a contingency for homebrewed beasts?"

[djreynolds]

See this is the issue of the beastmaster. Most people see this as Drizzt and his panther. I guy roaming through the woods with swords and bow. And either he is setting up an ambush by shooting with arrows and then the panther springs out, or he holding down a combatant and then panther knocks the enemy down.

This is how I used to see beastmaster. Or how I envisioned it when I wasted my kid's college fund on 20+ books. But the beast we have are not Drizzt's panther. For that you need a figurine of wondrous whatever.

However the beastmaster ranger can be competitive, I use that term loosely, if you go the dog on a chain route. Keep the beast beside you, wear at least medium armor, and let the enemy come to you. Some people like S&B and actually beginning as fighter for heavy armor and the protection style. Or using polearm master and sentinel. If you imagine the beast like a like an attack dog that stays with you and then you soften up the target and it goes and attacks. It unfortunately is a simple beast, and not Drizzt's panther with a high intelligence.

A fix could be a spell that kindles consciousness in the animal, at a higher level so it could think on its own. I'd even let an honest DM control it.

But as it stands I made a beastmaster ranger with a cleric dip for heavy armor and used spirit guardians, and the beast could leave to attack but could come back to my circle. I had a glaive and just used reach to get some reaction attack in and sentinel also.

If a beastmaster ranger had access to extra spells to help facilitate this, but instead multiclassing is the way to go.

But there are some cool things the beast provides, being able to switch it out so it is terrain appropriate is cool for scouting and stealth. I'm in the underdark so I grab a bat, I'm on the ocean I get a single fish. These kind of animals may not raise alarms while you are trying to traverse through enemy territory like a wizard's owl would.

[Tanarii]

I houserule to permit it, but I have a hard time seeing how this one is arguable in AL or other RAW games--you aren't taking the Attack Action, and I see no way around it. Which part are you interpreting as arguable? That TWF doesn't require the Attack Action or that ordering your beast to attack after level 5 counts as taking the Attack Action?The part where every time I've mentioned it as strictly RAW before, everyone comes out of the woodwork to argue with me about it. :smallwink:

[djreynolds]

How about at level 3, a hunter ranger just receives a figurine of wondrous power. And then we can all called it day.

I like my idea, you cast a ranger spell, it can be a concentration spell like hunter's mark, and it awakens your beasts mind allowing it to act on its own intelligently. And if you lose concentration, the beast goes back to normal.

[Bharaeth]

It also seems weird to me that you can never have a large beast, or indeed be bonded to many animals, like in that hit film 'The Beastmaster'. I would want to rework the class at higher levels that you gain extra beasts, but I haven't even begun to think what the mechanics of that might look like.

Also, I can see thematically a beastmaster ranger growing up with his beast *companion* and having a strong bond with it, like it becoming their closest friend as they go about their lives. So it seems weird that int he mechanics of the 5e class, their seems such an assumption that the beasts are disposable, and indeed quite likely to die...

[Arkhios]

It also seems weird to me that you can never have a large beast, or indeed be bonded to many animals, like in that hit film 'The Beastmaster'. I would want to rework the class at higher levels that you gain extra beasts, but I haven't even begun to think what the mechanics of that might look like.

Also, I can see thematically a beastmaster ranger growing up with his beast *companion* and having a strong bond with it, like it becoming their closest friend as they go about their lives. So it seems weird that int he mechanics of the 5e class, their seems such an assumption that the beasts are disposable, and indeed quite likely to die...

In general I agree, that the beast master should be able to tame and accompany larger creatures, but it should still have a limited Challenge Rating. It might work if the minimum CR increased in same increments as it does by default for druid's wild shape. (1/4 or less, 1/2 or less, and eventually 1 or less). There are plenty of potential animals resting at CR 1 (In PH alone: Brown Bear, Dire Wolf, Giant Eagle, Giant Spider, Lion, and Tiger).

Rangers already have a feature with which they can summon multiple wild animals at their disposal. It's called Conjure Animals (a 3rd level spell). No need for permanent multiple beasts.

[Bharaeth]

In general I agree, that the beast master should be able to tame and accompany larger creatures, but it should still have a limited Challenge Rating. It might work if the minimum CR increased in same increments as it does by default for druid's wild shape. (1/4 or less, 1/2 or less, and eventually 1 or less). There are plenty of potential animals resting at CR 1 (In PH alone: Brown Bear, Dire Wolf, Giant Eagle, Giant Spider, Lion, and Tiger).

Rangers already have a feature with which they can summon multiple wild animals at their disposal. It's called Conjure Animals (a 3rd level spell). No need for permanent multiple beasts.

Yes, that CR-dependent thing could work. Even more so if you claim that the earlier levels was a young version of the tiger/dire wolf/brown bear!

And, i did forget about the spells aspect of the Ranger. Good call. Also, some successful Animal Handling checks and some nice RPing would probably have many GMs happy with you befriending a ferret on a permanent-ish basis, to go with your slavering, man-eating tiger (dyed black)

[Waffle_Iron]

Well, you can also do this as a mastermind rogue.

Not really sure what my point is though.

:)

You can also do a nearly unlimited number if you use the awakening spell on as many animals as possible, and treat them very well.

[Arkhios]

Yes, that CR-dependent thing could work. Even more so if you claim that the earlier levels was a young version of the tiger/dire wolf/brown bear!

And, i did forget about the spells aspect of the Ranger. Good call. Also, some successful Animal Handling checks and some nice RPing would probably have many GMs happy with you befriending a ferret on a permanent-ish basis, to go with your slavering, man-eating tiger (dyed black)

If I recall, rangers had Animal Friendship as well (1st level spell) which is a "save or suck" spell. If memory serves, it charms up to 9 animals (1 per spell level) with up to 2 or 3 intelligence for 24 hours.

[Xetheral]

The part where every time I've mentioned it as strictly RAW before, everyone comes out of the woodwork to argue with me about it. :smallwink:

Fair enough! :)

[djreynolds]

The issue is that the beast can be anything CR 1/4. None of these are intelligent, and you select them when you are out adventuring, its not like you actually train them from birth or purchase them like a warhorse.

The beast becomes at higher levels a disposable scout. I mean I can't even select a giant owl, which would be real cool for an archer to have for purposes of advantage. The wolf's trip is DC 13, most high level play that is an easy save for monster's and enemies.

If you were to have a beast that was intelligent and trainable, it would need be able to increase class levels and you would need months to train them.

So if you are playing a game up to 10th or 11th level, beastmaster is all right.

The issue for me, is the beast really doesn't seem on par with what a hunter gets at higher levels. And you get nothing if the beast dies.

I have played a beastmaster personally up to 8th level, after that, before the campaign ended I was looking into multiclassing with cleric.

Has anyone really played a high level beastmaster?

[R.Shackleford]

Hello everyone,

I've been running a 5th edition game since it first came out and as my current campaign is coming to an end one of my players has offered to run a short campaign to give me a chance to sit on the other side of the screen while I prepare my next campaign.

Anyways the player has asked u to make non optimized level 7 characters for this game. And my first thought was a hill dwarf Beast master ranger with the guild Artisan (a brew master). Who uses solely hand axes and his giant toad animal companion.

My question is how bad are the beast masters? Will I be hurting the group with this choice. I know non optimized doesn't mean worthless so I want a character who is fun to role play and useful to the group with not being too powerful.

I've experienced a mountain dwarf hunter ranger and that was very optimized as it duel wielded axes and carved up every enemy in it's path so I want to avoid that combo.

My biggest problem outside of how wonky they are is that they took the 4e Beast Master, which was known to have a lot of issues outside of optimization builds, and pretty much just transfered it over to 5e.

Instead of fixing the problems or trying to figure out a way for it to work... They just plopped it right over and it doesn't seem like they tried, at all, to address the issues many people had with it.

They could have at least used the Essentials Druid instead of the Beastmaster Ranger.

[Arkhios]

A big improvement on save dependent traits would be if ranger's proficiency bonus would apply on them along with the others.

A trip DC 13 would end up as DC 19 at 17th level and beyond, which would be perfectly in line with maximum possible Spellcasting DC (at least from what I'm aware of; frankly I hope there's no loophole to increase spellcasting DC further than that).

[RickAllison]

A big improvement on save dependent traits would be if ranger's proficiency bonus would apply on them along with the others.

A trip DC 13 would end up as DC 19 at 17th level and beyond, which would be perfectly in line with maximum possible Spellcasting DC (at least from what I'm aware of; frankly I hope there's no loophole to increase spellcasting DC further than that).

Currently, I think the only loopholes that increase DC beyond that is a level 20 barbarian who has something going off Con or Str (Genasi and Dragonborn? The Martial Adept feat for non-spell casting), a warlock with the Rod of the Pact Keeper, and the Tomes that increase the attribute and its maximum. So the only way to guarantee doing so is through a max level build that can use a fairly weak breath attack, Levitate, or a 1st level Burning Hands?

[Arkhios]

Currently, I think the only loopholes that increase DC beyond that is a level 20 barbarian who has something going off Con or Str (Genasi and Dragonborn? The Martial Adept feat for non-spell casting), a warlock with the Rod of the Pact Keeper, and the Tomes that increase the attribute and its maximum. So the only way to guarantee doing so is through a max level build that can use a fairly weak breath attack, Levitate, or a 1st level Burning Hands?

As long as it's a rare corner case scenario like those I believe they've "earned" it. :)
For example, the Tomes are legendary items so a person who have got their hands upon and read one has the "right" to have legendary abilities. :)

[famousringo]

A big improvement on save dependent traits would be if ranger's proficiency bonus would apply on them along with the others.

A trip DC 13 would end up as DC 19 at 17th level and beyond, which would be perfectly in line with maximum possible Spellcasting DC (at least from what I'm aware of; frankly I hope there's no loophole to increase spellcasting DC further than that).

There's an item for warlocks, and only warlocks as far as I know, that provides up to +3 save DC. I guess they're special somehow. Good luck rolling a natural 20 on that Feeblind save, all you INT dumping suckas.

I agree beast save DCs should scale. When you consider that the frog can restrain people with no save at all, it doesn't seem out of line to make prone and poison more reliable.

It'd also be nice to apply proficiency to saving throws, since the book says the beast gets a save bonus except, oops, none of them are actually proficient in saves to begin with.

[Blue Lantern]

There's an item for warlocks, and only warlocks as far as I know, that provides up to +3 save DC. I guess they're special somehow. Good luck rolling a natural 20 on that Feeblind save, all you INT dumping suckas.

I agree beast save DCs should scale. When you consider that the frog can restrain people with no save at all, it doesn't seem out of line to make prone and poison more reliable.

It'd also be nice to apply proficiency to saving throws, since the book says the beast gets a save bonus except, oops, none of them are actually proficient in saves to begin with.

There is also the Robe of the Archmage for arcane spellcasters who gives a +2 on spells DC.

Then there are the tomes that can potentially increase stats up to 30, although I doubt there is a DM crazy enough to let more than one per character.

[SharkForce]

and, lastly, there is an ioun stone that can increase proficiency bonus.

all told, the absolute maximum a PC spellcaster can get is from a warlock, and would be 8 (base) + 10 (30 charisma from tomes) + 7 (proficiency bonus with ioun stone) + 2 (robe of the archmage) + 3 (rod of the pact keeper) = 30.

for a non-warlock, it would be 27.

of course, that is absurdly improbable. but it is theoretically possible. also, it's all kinds of broken because you need at least a +7 save bonus to even have a chance at resisting their spells.also, horribly broken if they do get anywhere near that high.

[Naanomi]

It is a small point, but can I also say I wish they got Animal Handling for free? I've never built a ranger that didn't feel strapped for proficiencies

(Survival, Perception, Stealth, (Athletics/Acrobatics), (Int Skill associated with main enemy) doesn't leave much room; but I always want animal handling for my beastmaster...

[Tanarii]

It is a small point, but can I also say I wish they got Animal Handling for free? I've never built a ranger that didn't feel strapped for proficiencies

(Survival, Perception, Stealth, (Athletics/Acrobatics), (Int Skill associated with main enemy) doesn't leave much room; but I always want animal handling for my beastmaster...I consider the required three: Stealth, Survival, Nature. But yeah, Rangers are super strapped for proficiency compared to other classes, even getting three with the class. Especially if their Background doesn't include either of the three I see as required for Rangering.

[Easy_Lee]

I consider the required three: Stealth, Survival, Nature. But yeah, Rangers are super strapped for proficiency compared to other classes, even getting three with the class. Especially if their Background doesn't include either of the three I see as required for Rangering.

Just checked it out, and rangers start with 3 skills, while rogues start with four and paladins start with two. So rangers do, at least, have it better than paladins in terms of skill selection. On a side note, it's almost as if medium armor prof = 1 skill, and heavy armor prof = 2.

[Specter]

I consider the required three: Stealth, Survival, Nature. But yeah, Rangers are super strapped for proficiency compared to other classes, even getting three with the class. Especially if their Background doesn't include either of the three I see as required for Rangering.

Put Perception up there too, can't be an attentive warden without seeing threats. It also profits from Natural Explorer.

[Naanomi]

Lore Bards get 6
Rogues get 4 (And warlocks with the right invocation, and knowledge clerics, and tiger totem barbarians)
Valor Bards and Rangers get 3
Everyone else gets 2

The distinction is no class has more class abilities tied to specific proficiencies. The aforementioned paladin has no skills that are essential to his paladin-news.

Thieves have two, swashbucklers and berserkers have one... Rangers if all stripes have Survival and Stealth keyed abilities; potentially multiple intelligence skills to get knowledge about favored enemies...

[Tanarii]

Just checked it out, and rangers start with 3 skills, while rogues start with four and paladins start with two. So rangers do, at least, have it better than paladins in terms of skill selection. On a side note, it's almost as if medium armor prof = 1 skill, and heavy armor prof = 2.Yeah but Rangers need Survival and Nature for their class features, and what's a Ranger without Stealth? :smallwink: Add in Perception and one of Athletics/Acrobatics, and you've used up all 5.

'Classic' Rogues need Stealth, Investigation, and Perception. Throw in one of Athletics/Stealth, that still leaves two open. Deception if you're an Assassin.

Paladins can take Athletics, and need Animal Handling through Background if they're gonna be a mounted 'Knight'.

It's not about how many proficiencies they get, it's about how many they need to do their classic class function.

[Vogonjeltz]

?

The bonus to damage is proficiency, that exceeds the Rage damage bonus which caps out at only +4.

Hence: The Beast companion damage scales better than Rage with the number 6 being larger than the number 4.

[Giant2005]

all told, the absolute maximum a PC spellcaster can get is from a warlock, and would be 8 (base) + 10 (30 charisma from tomes) + 7 (proficiency bonus with ioun stone) + 2 (robe of the archmage) + 3 (rod of the pact keeper) = 30.

You could go 1 point higher by replacing the Ioun Stone with a +2 Rod of the Pact Keeper.

[Easy_Lee]

You could go 1 point higher by replacing the Ioun Stone with a +2 Rod of the Pact Keeper.

This sort of thing is why I stay away from +X features, in general.

Back on topic, I hope that DMs out there will consider the following features for BM rangers:

Change size of beast between small and medium as an action, so it can attend polite company.
Allow ranger to see through the beast's eyes, and vice versa.
Allow ranger to resurrect their beast past a certain level. People get attached.
Allow ranger to Awaken the beast by himself after 15, or at least give him access to a Druid. This is too cool to pass up.
Make the level 7 feature a default. Features shouldn't be the removal of limitations.

Contrary to how it may seem, I'm more concerned with the lack of interesting things one can do with one's beast than I am with the numbers.

[Tanarii]

Change size of beast between small and medium as an action, so it can attend polite company.
Allow ranger to see through the beast's eyes, and vice versa.
Allow ranger to resurrect their beast past a certain level. People get attached.
Allow ranger to Awaken the beast by himself after 15, or at least give him access to a Druid. This is too cool to pass up.

sounds more like a wizard than a ranger to me. Or a Ranger with a magical item instead of a beast companion.

See through eyes possibly excepted. I have seen The Beastmaster after all. :smallwink:

[Easy_Lee]

sounds more like a wizard than a ranger to me. Or a Ranger with a magical item instead of a beast companion.

See through eyes possibly excepted. I have seen The Beastmaster after all. :smallwink:

Well, I'm going at it from the angle that the ranger is half-druid. If we assume that adding 1/3 casting via an archetype is okay, then adding additional magical abilities to the ranger's normal half-casting seems fine, to me.

[Tanarii]

Okay that's not a bad point.

Especially since the Ranger already can see through his companions eyes starting at level 5 (Beast Sense).

And yeah actually, I agree that Awaken would be cool on the Ranger spell list, or automatically granting it as something the Beastmaster can cast on his Companion only. Although I'd make it level 17, since that's when Rangers learn level 5 spell.

Res I don't see as necessary. Given death saving throws, a beast isn't likely to be down and out permanently that much more often any more than a player, especially since they're unlikely to be targeted while already down. And when it happens a long rest is enough to pick up a new one, unlike picking up a new PC of equivalent level. Besides Druids don't get raise dead.

Edit: I think it was the size changing thing that made me go derp

[Easy_Lee]

Edit: I think it was the size changing thing that made me go derp

It's one of those flavorful things that I like, but which makes other people think Pokemon. I'm reminded more of Inuyasha, which is also not a favorable comparison in my mind. But I thought about beast masters walking around town with panthers, and thought it best to give players an option for avoiding that kind of attention.

[Tanarii]

It's one of those flavorful things that I like, but which makes other people think Pokemon.
Actually, it made me think of a certain drow. And I really dislike how much people have come to associate certain things about him as 'ranger'. But most especially his magical artifact based companion being associated with the animal companions of beastmasters.

[Easy_Lee]

Actually, it made me think of a certain drow. And I really dislike how much people have come to associate certain things about him as 'ranger'. But most especially his magical artifact based companion being associated with the animal companions of beastmasters.

Ah, yeah...that, too. It's kind of odd, since just looking at the writing he's clearly a fighter (possibly with barbarian levels).

Maybe I should write the fluff in such a way that it's very clear the companion does not turn into a figurine and is instead just a smaller, or larger, version of itself.

[Naanomi]

While I know this version of Ranger has some inherent magic, I don't feel like Beastmaster is the subclass that should be the 'more magic'... I want a guy who trains his cool (natural) pet animal, not an zoomancer and his meat-summon

[SharkForce]

You could go 1 point higher by replacing the Ioun Stone with a +2 Rod of the Pact Keeper.

i don't think most DMs i've played with would allow me to get away with using a +2 and +3 version of the same item on a single thing. but so long as we're going to try and pull the extra strong cheese, you could arguably just use three +3 rods of the pact keeper for a DC of 33.

[Giant2005]

i don't think most DMs i've played with would allow me to get away with using a +2 and +3 version of the same item on a single thing. but so long as we're going to try and pull the extra strong cheese, you could arguably just use three +3 rods of the pact keeper for a DC of 33.

Three +3 rods doesn't work because you can't attune to two of the same item.

[Naanomi]

i don't think most DMs i've played with would allow me to get away with using a +2 and +3 version of the same item on a single thing. but so long as we're going to try and pull the extra strong cheese, you could arguably just use three +3 rods of the pact keeper for a DC of 33.
Three is unrealistic! Though there is another +DC (rod? staff? I'm AFB) useable for all casters to hold in one hand, and the Rod in the other (war-caster necessary for most spells)

[djreynolds]

The beast, sadly, isn't an animal companion that you have trained from birth, that in editions past grew in level and ability.

The creature isn't something you have grown with and had years of training.

It is a simple beast that you have chosen because it is suited to the particular environment you are now adventuring in, it is a well suited scout.

So if you are in the swamp and you decide that, hey Mr Wolf, I'm setting you free and I'm grabbing this giant toad because he is native to the area and will not cause alarm if he is spotted.

The problem is combat though, at higher levels you are still having to give up an attack for the beast to attack and some beasts still only have one attack. The creature is still a 1/4CR beast that is medium sized. You can't even share hunter's mark with it when you share spells and stoneskin comes too late and I cannot use beast bond because both are concentration

But if I cast a spell, the best I could do is use a bonus action for the beast to dodge or help, etc

Now the beast and I can share beast bond, but we must have line of sight and it is concentration. And now any spell I want to cast cannot be concentration or I lose this spell.

Yes, his to attack and AC and damage increase with my proficiency bonus, but his stats are the same. His dexterity, strength, etc have not increased. A beast master's wolf at 17th level has +10 to hit, and does 13 damage and its AC is 19, maybe more if I place barding on it. This isn't terrible, but his HP taps out at 80 at 20 level.

When you look at this above the beast seems like a viable alternative, but you are giving up one of your two attacks to make this happen. And any spells like lightning arrow and conjure animals or woodland beings means my beastbond is dispelled because these are concentration. And hunter's mark is also concentration. And so is stoneskin.

The beastmaster ranger really needs an alternative spell list and perhaps a shared concentration ability, so when I cast a spell I can transfer my concentration to my beast as a bonus action. So if I can share spells at 15th level, the beast and I have beastbond but the beast maintains the concentration on that spell, or the stoneskin, or barkskin, or whatever. And as a bonus action I can transfer it back to me or swap out another concentration spell with it.

This could open things up and it is 15th level. In fact I see no reason if you cast barkskin on your wolf why the wolf cannot maintain the concentration on it at earlier levels.

And I see no reason why the beast cannot also use your class abilities, such as foe slayer, wouldn't that be nice.

Spell suggested to have for the beast master are stuff like mirror image, aid, magic weapon or magic attack

[Zalabim]

It's one of those flavorful things that I like, but which makes other people think Pokemon. I'm reminded more of Inuyasha, which is also not a favorable comparison in my mind. But I thought about beast masters walking around town with panthers, and thought it best to give players an option for avoiding that kind of attention.

People walk around with horses, dogs, and elephants, right? What's so odd about a panther?

[Regitnui]

People walk around with horses, dogs, and elephants, right? What's so odd about a panther?

This is a world where people can spray fire from their fingertips and clean themselves with a snap of their fingers, where you neighbour is likely to have fire instead of hair or be half or twice your size, and there's concern that people walking down the street with a tame panther? Really? hat's the least strange thing the average D&D commoner is likely to see.

[Tanarii]

This is a world where people can spray fire from their fingertips and clean themselves with a snap of their fingers, where you neighbour is likely to have fire instead of hair or be half or twice your size, and there's concern that people walking down the street with a tame panther? Really? hat's the least strange thing the average D&D commoner is likely to see.
Depends if those things are common, or so rare a PC doing them (or from one of those races) is likely to cause fear among commoners.

Not all D&D worlds are Forgotten Realms.

[R.Shackleford]

It is a small point, but can I also say I wish they got Animal Handling for free? I've never built a ranger that didn't feel strapped for proficiencies

(Survival, Perception, Stealth, (Athletics/Acrobatics), (Int Skill associated with main enemy) doesn't leave much room; but I always want animal handling for my beastmaster...

Use Handle Animal to grapple/shove pretty much anything since we are all like, animals, man.

There are no "animal types" there is a "beast type" though. So you could say that humans, balors, and crocodiles are all "animals" (a lot of humans and demons act like it even if they aren't) that had evolved to a different state and that the skill allows you to handle them.

Just my 2 RM cents for the day.

(actually my groups allow Handle Animal to replace Athletics when working with beasts)



This is a world where people can spray fire from their fingertips and clean themselves with a snap of their fingers, where you neighbour is likely to have fire instead of hair or be half or twice your size, and there's concern that people walking down the street with a tame panther? Really? hat's the least strange thing the average D&D commoner is likely to see.

This is actually wrong when it comes to published settings for 5e.

Players forget that just because they are around magic and awesome sauce doesn't mean that a majority of NPCs within the setting are. A majority of people within these settings don't have magic, firehair, or other weird things. NPCs may know about or hear stories about all this crazy stuff but the settings aren't really that diverse this far. You have your towns where a majority of people are basic and a few people aren't as basic.

For a baker, jailor, or whatever NPC seeing a huge Panther come through a civilized town could be as crazy as seeing a fire genasi.

[Regitnui]

Depends if those things are common, or so rare a PC doing them (or from one of those races) is likely to cause fear among commoners.

Not all D&D worlds are Forgotten Realms.

I was actually thinking more along the lines of Eberron or a low-magic setting. In Fairly-Well-Defined Realms and Greyhawk, you're more than likely to see level 20 archmages, and that just throws sanity and physics out the window like so much used toilet paper.

[djreynolds]

I think at level 15, if you could share spells and concentration it could open up the beastmaster class a little.

If your beast could hold concentration for you, it would make casting spells with a beast kinda viable and the beast as bonus action could take the dodge action.

And at level 15, it would be tough to abuse, it would just be a beastmaster thing.

A lot of the ranger's power comes from his spells, being able to shift say the concentration for stoneskin that you are sharing with your wolf, to your wolf would allow you to conjure animals. Then its not silly to have the beast take the dodge action or dash in order to preserve the spell.

Its not a huge fix, but it opens up possibilities.

[Giant2005]

A lot of the ranger's power comes from his spells, being able to shift say the concentration for stoneskin that you are sharing with your wolf, to your wolf would allow you to conjure animals.

Even raging is enough to lower your mental faculties to the point where concentration is impossible. I don't think it would make sense for animal intelligence to be able to pull off what a raging human couldn't.

[RickAllison]

Even raging is enough to lower your mental faculties to the point where concentration is impossible. I don't think it would make sense for animal intelligence to be able to pull off what a raging human couldn't.

See, I don't think that lowered mental faculties are what cause the barbarian's inability to cast spells. A sorcerer with 3 Int is just as capable of casting spells as one at 20, so that can't be it. Instead, I think the rage of a barbarian is so focused that it is essentially supplanting concentration. He can't concentrate because he is devoting his mind totally to his anger.

When you think about it that way, they are an incredibly disciplined class.

[Belac93]

I was actually thinking more along the lines of Eberron or a low-magic setting. In Fairly-Well-Defined Realms and Greyhawk, you're more than likely to see level 20 archmages, and that just throws sanity and physics out the window like so much used toilet paper.

Are you supposed to throw used toilet paper out the window? If so, I've been living wrong. :smalleek:

Well, what about some builds that make the beastmaster optimized? I've heard of the halfling riding a giant crab and dual-weilding lances, but what are some other ideas?

[djreynolds]

Even raging is enough to lower your mental faculties to the point where concentration is impossible. I don't think it would make sense for animal intelligence to be able to pull off what a raging human couldn't.

Some of the spells like beastbond enable the beast to be more. Its almost as if the ranger is able to share his intelligence on consciousness on a small level with the beast. If you can add your proficiency bonus, which you have in earned in years of in-game experience... perhaps this could open up higher level play for beastmasters.

Don't rain on my parade. help me out with this one.

[R.Shackleford]

Between this thread and the Ranger thread a couple months ago...

I've come to conclusion that the animal companion feature, in some way, should have just been a feat.

It would have been a top tier feat, sure, but it would have served its purpose well and could have 1st least made the mechanics of the beast not be so Damn wonky.

[famousringo]

The problem is combat though, at higher levels you are still having to give up an attack for the beast to attack and some beasts still only have one attack. The creature is still a 1/4CR beast that is medium sized.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point here, but any beast gets a second attack with Bestial Fury, not just those with multiattack.


You can't even share hunter's mark with it when you share spells and stoneskin comes too late and I cannot use beast bond because both are concentration
Yes, Hunter's Mark stinks with Beastmaster. Beast Bond seems meant to be some kind of substitute, but I like Entangling Strike better. At 15, you and your beast will even be able to double up with it.


But if I cast a spell, the best I could do is use a bonus action for the beast to dodge or help, etc
Um, this is actually a good thing? Hunters don't get an at-will bonus action that they can throw around when they spend their action casting a spell. Most other casters don't, either.


Now the beast and I can share beast bond, but we must have line of sight and it is concentration. And now any spell I want to cast cannot be concentration or I lose this spell.

Yep, that's how concentration works. Hunters also need to choose which buff or debuff they want to use. Can't stack up Hunter's Mark, Lightning Arrow and Swift Quiver all at once. Beastmasters already get to cheat a little by being able to share buffs with their beast, though I wish this trick came online a little sooner.



Spell suggested to have for the beast master are stuff like mirror image, aid, magic weapon or magic attack

Yeah, a lot of beastmaster problems could be addressed by adding more beastmaster-centric spells. Like a beast-buddy Revivify or bringing back Magic Fang so beasts can get past resistance.

[Zalabim]

bringing back Magic Fang so beasts can get past resistance.

It's worth repeating, Hunters don't have an in-class way to get past resistance either. Magic Weapon isn't on the Ranger spell list.

[Coidzor]

It's worth repeating, Hunters don't have an in-class way to get past resistance either. Magic Weapon isn't on the Ranger spell list.

But you have magic weapons for PCs a lot more often than anyone lets a wolf wield a sword in its jaws.

[Regitnui]

Perhaps a feature akin to the githzerai monk's that allows beast companion attacks to count as magical might be helpful?

[Blue Lantern]

But you have magic weapons for PCs a lot more often than anyone lets a wolf wield a sword in its jaws.

At times it works :smallsmile:

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/darksouls/images/3/38/Sif.png/revision/latest?cb=20130818191641

[Giant2005]

But you have magic weapons for PCs a lot more often than anyone lets a wolf wield a sword in its jaws.

The fact that the DM is handing out magic weapons to players like candy and not an Insignia of Claws for the companion is a DM issue, not a game issue.

[Coidzor]

The fact that the DM is handing out magic weapons to players like candy and not an Insignia of Claws for the companion is a DM issue, not a game issue.

Because having them at all means having them passed out like candy. :smalltongue: