BM idea - Allowing companion ASIs?

[Oramac]

Pretty much what the title says. What effect would there be if one were to allow a Ranger's companion to get ASI's at the same time as the Ranger? Either in addition to, or instead of the Ranger.

[R.Shackleford]

Pretty much what the title says. What effect would there be if one were to allow a Ranger's companion to get ASI's at the same time as the Ranger? Either in addition to, or instead of the Ranger.

The primary issue with the BMR isn't really how powerful it can be. Really it is mostly fine and allowing this would throw off some balance.

The issues comes from the animal companion being killed quite easily (which this idea would help if you put points into Dex or Con) but the biggest issue with a lot of people is that it just plainly doesn't make sense.

The animal companion acts more like a robot than an animal.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Instead of the ranger should be fine balance-wise; in addition is a slight power boost but not a terrible one-- I wouldn't worry too much. But as R.Shacklefod mentions, it won't do much about the main complaints about the subclass.

[Oramac]

Thanks guys. I didn't figure it would affect balance too much, but wasn't sure if it would even be worthwhile either.

[uraniumrooster]

I agree with the other posts so far.

The Beastmaster's biggest problem isn't necessarily that it's underpowered (it is, slightly, but can still be quite strong when well optimized), but that it's just awkward to play. While most classes in the PHB are designed in a way that limits their abilities in order to focus on their strengths, making them fun to play, the BM's limitations hobble its primary class feature and force the player to constantly struggle against a set of restrictive and counter-intuitive rules.

Giving the companion its own ASIs would help make the BM's primary class feature a bit stronger, and thus make enduring the awkwardness more worthwhile, but I think it would still be less enjoyable than the other classes in the game. It needs a pretty big overhaul to make it a fun class, IMO.

[R.Shackleford]

I agree with the other posts so far.

The Beastmaster's biggest problem isn't necessarily that it's underpowered (it is, slightly, but can still be quite strong when well optimized), but that it's just awkward to play. While most classes in the PHB are designed in a way that limits their abilities in order to focus on their strengths, making them fun to play, the BM's limitations hobble its primary class feature and force the player to constantly struggle against a set of restrictive and counter-intuitive rules.

Giving the companion its own ASIs would help make the BM's primary class feature a bit stronger, and thus make enduring the awkwardness more worthwhile, but I think it would still be less enjoyable than the other classes in the game. It needs a pretty big overhaul to make it a fun class, IMO.

Animal Companion should have been a feat.

Ranger should have been a Fighter, Barbarian, or Rogue subclass.

As much as I like the idea of a Ranger, I think ranger works better as a complimentary piece as it feels more like a background than a class (much like Ancients Paladin).

[quinron]

The other problem you could run into is multiclassing - would you allow ASIs gained through other classes to be used for the beast, and if not, why?

In the end, ultimately, it's not going to make much of a difference - the average once-per-4-levels ASI isn't going to improve your companion much more than the guaranteed once-every-4-levels proficiency increase, which your beast is always guaranteed. Sure, you could double up ASIs and proficiency, but if you're doing that much to improve your beast, why aren't you just playing the beast instead of the ranger?

[toapat]

Animal Companion should have been a feat.

Ranger should have been a Fighter, Barbarian, or Rogue subclass.

As much as I like the idea of a Ranger, I think ranger works better as a complimentary piece as it feels more like a background than a class (much like Ancients Paladin).

while i agree that ranger probably should have been stepped back to just be a subclass, Vengeance/Devotion/Ancients paladin creates conceptual differences in the execution of paladin as well as being mechanically divided along Offense/Balance/Defense for the class

[uraniumrooster]

Animal Companion should have been a feat.

Ranger should have been a Fighter, Barbarian, or Rogue subclass.

As much as I like the idea of a Ranger, I think ranger works better as a complimentary piece as it feels more like a background than a class (much like Ancients Paladin).

Animal Companion as a feat isn't a bad idea. I might look into houseruling that.

But D&D without Rangers?! Blasphemy! Next you'll want to get rid of Gnomes as a player race!

[djreynolds]

The animal companion is an odd concept for a few reasons.

1. It is a beast and not a spirit in animal form like a familiar or paladin's steed.

2. If it dies with 8 hours of training, a squirrel of a 20th level ranger, could have 80 hp.

3. I cannot have large beast as a medium human, but a gnome can have a medium beast.

4. I have no idea how awakening would affect a beast companion, let's just say you paid an NPC druid to do it.

5. The ranger archetype doesn't get a different subset of spells.

What I would like to see?

1. the ranger gets awakening as a class feature (only for its beast), I mean how in world does a wolf I just found in the wild in 8 hours transform, say I'm 10th level, into a beast that now has 40hp.

2. Perhaps a lifelong companion that levels as I do and when he dies, its brutal. It takes months to find the right replacement

3. spells that would enable me to keep alive a comrade

[toapat]

Animal Companion as a feat isn't a bad idea. I might look into houseruling that.

But D&D without Rangers?! Blasphemy! Next you'll want to get rid of Gnomes as a player race!

Some classes just dont ever justify their own existance. Rangers have good classfeatures but alot of their class features fit a background and the mechanics which dont, then are missing something. Then theres the Cleric and Druid, which are literally separate interpretations of an Adherent of Divinity. Now, im not for making clerics more powerful, but druids really dont justify their existence in 5th like in previous editions. Classes are just that much more modular in design

[djreynolds]

Some classes just dont ever justify their own existance. Rangers have good classfeatures but alot of their class features fit a background and the mechanics which dont, then are missing something. Then theres the Cleric and Druid, which are literally separate interpretations of an Adherent of Divinity. Now, im not for making clerics more powerful, but druids really dont justify their existence in 5th like in previous editions. Classes are just that much more modular in design

I do not want to get off topic. But I agree 100%.

The druid feels like a nature cleric prestige class.

----- on topic-----

I have no problem allowing companions to use your save proficiencies, for a ranger on dex and strength saves.

And I have no problem with ASI if your pet has survived levels. That's my issue with beastmaster, is I like the idea of being able to switch beast because of differing environments, such as grabbing a fish for the ocean or a monkey for the ship's rigging.

But if you keep say a wolf for 10 levels, something must happen. It should increase its intelligence.

I would have the party pay to have high level druid or bard "awaken" it with the spell.