Rangers with Animal Friendship

[Segev]

Let’s say a Ranger and his party are traveling through Chult when he’s level two, and come across a giant crocodile. Deadly encounter, right? But, he knows animal friendship, and the beast fails it’s will save.

Now the party has a mighty beast that is at least friendly to them!

What can the Ranger get his new friend to do?

He keeps casting the spell every day, maybe multiple times, just to be sure his friend stays friendly.

Excited by this ally, he becomes a Beast Master when he levels up, and chooses a velociraptor. He also uses animal friendship on a second velociraptor.

What can he do with his companion beast that he cannot with his charmed ones? What can he do with his charmed beasts that he cannot do with his companion?

The Beastmaster is said to be a weak archetype. Obviously, there’s nothing about animal friendship that any Ranger, Druid, or even bard couldn’t do, as well. But is it truly more powerful than the entire Ranger’s Companion class feature? Or are there limitations that the feature overcomes? (Obviously, there’s the potential for increased hp and the proficiency bonus to attacks and some saves, which I believe stack with the creature’s own, but does that make the difference sufficient to require the...drawbacks compared to a charmed creature which has fully its own actions and none of the size and CR limitations?)

Bonus question: can a flying monkey who is a ranger’s companion wield weapons, and is the ranger’s proficiency sufficient to make his reasonable with them when he is not, himself, proficient?


I should add that, aside from the bonus question, my purpose here is to evaluate some thoughts I have about home brewing a variant on the ranger’s companion feature. I am not arguing it’s not in need of something, just asking for help evaluating its power compared to animal friendship.

[DrKerosene]

I do like to suggest Animal Friendship can be a gateway to being a Beastmaster, if you want to roleplay that process.

I occasionally suggest that combining it with ritual castings of Speak With Animals basically open up the social pillar of the game to include Beasts. Which should have the same kind of limitations for NPCs, like saying “you can’t convince the shopkeeper to just do X because you rolled high on persuasion, it needs to be reasonable”. I have also suggested using the Sidekick rules for some situations of Animal Companions (when a Wondrous Figurine or the UA Beast Conclave are not reasonable alternative options).

I’ve seen people point to various disney type media as examples for how to treat Familiars and (Ranger) Animal Companions. I do like the idea of expanding that to all animals (like The Wild Thornberrys, The Land Before Time, Antz, Homeward Bound, Lion King, Watership Down, The Jungle Book, Animal Farm, Little Mermaid, Tarzan, etc) if you can communicate.

Based on previous editions saying you need to train a young animal, and can’t typically domesticate a fully grown wild animal, I’d say the uses of a charmed second (or third) animal is limited to what you could do with a hostage or hireling.

So I assume companion can be trained to co-ordinate with the Ranger and any member of the Party, while the charmed beast is more of a wild-card with sub-optimal decision making/timing, much more likely to just flee against big bad things, etc.

And it’s been rare that I’ve been in a group without at least one person who didn’t want even imaginary animal cruelty to be a thing, so using them to check for traps hasn’t been an option in my experience.

I would probably not initially rule a (flying) monkey has proficiency with weapons, even as an animal companion, but I’d be fine with allowing it over time.

[JackPhoenix]

The beast isn't friendly to anyone, not even the ranger. The beast can't attack the ranger... anyone else is still potential lunch.... and the ranger has an advantage on any ability check to interact with it socially. That's it.

Also, velociraptors are too smart clever girls. Animal Friendship only works on beasts with Int less than 4.

[Segev]

Right, my bad. It is just charmed.

So what does that let you do with it? Handle Animal is a Wisdom check, but is still interacting socially, so you still have advantage on it. As well as persuasion and even whatever you need to commune with it (assuming you don’t have speak with animals).

Though this does mean it’s not great against the crocodile: it can still attack your friends, and will, because it’s hungry.

Still, the point of this thread is what a ranger can do with beasts he charms with animal friendship, if he deliberately seeks to leverage it to get trained helpers. And to compare that to the ranger’s companion feature.

Though I suppose just comparing what you can do with trained animals in general is also appropriate, as well and whether speak with animals makes any difference and how much.

[TigerT20]

Just imagine the crocodile as an NPC with very basic needs.
Let's say 'Eat' 'Have children' and 'Survive'

So if the ranger wants it to do something that goes against these principles, it will likely refuse. If it doesn't go against one, but doesn't assist one, call for a check - if it's reasonable. If it boosts one, the crocodile is likely to agree.

That's with Speak With Animals though. Without it, I'd imagine its like a massive log-cat. It won't try to harm you, and may occasionally do what you want when it suits it. But everything else is free hunting.

[Segev]

Just imagine the crocodile as an NPC with very basic needs.
Let's say 'Eat' 'Have children' and 'Survive'

So if the ranger wants it to do something that goes against these principles, it will likely refuse. If it doesn't go against one, but doesn't assist one, call for a check - if it's reasonable. If it boosts one, the crocodile is likely to agree.

That's with Speak With Animals though. Without it, I'd imagine its like a massive log-cat. It won't try to harm you, and may occasionally do what you want when it suits it. But everything else is free hunting.

I feel like my attempts to add color have focused this conversation on the wrong things. I chose "giant crocodile" because that's something my party faced early in their careers.

Can animals be trained without being rangers' companions? Are ranger companions way more powerful and useful than people on this forum make them out to be, because any other animal is useless for anything but riding or droving?

[47Ace]

I think the only real differences between an animal companion and a pet trained with DM permission (and speak with animal/animal friendships assistance) to fill a similar role is:
1) The companion is in the rangers power level for calculating encounter difficulty while a pet or hireling is not and a balanced encounter has to be made more difficult to compensate.
2) If the rulings not rules (not official rules that I know of hence its a ruling) way of commanding the pet or hireling is not made with the beast masters rules in mind they are likely to be much more powerful then an animal companion. The rangers companion is very limited by needed to be commanded by an action as it must fit in the power level of the ranger one player having two turns at level 3 would be broken.

[TigerT20]

Generally even a trained animal will bolt when combat begins unless it has been either a) specially trained for battlefields or special measures have been taken to keep it calm or b) magically bonded with its owner.

So sure, you can have your pet wolf. But unless you dedicate time and resources to training it for battle, it's simply that: a pet.

[firelistener]

I feel like my attempts to add color have focused this conversation on the wrong things. I chose "giant crocodile" because that's something my party faced early in their careers.

Can animals be trained without being rangers' companions? Are ranger companions way more powerful and useful than people on this forum make them out to be, because any other animal is useless for anything but riding or droving?

Yes, true animal companions are meant to be way more helpful because of the bonuses they get to proficiencies from the Ranger and the features from Beast Master like Exceptional Training. Just "training" an animal is not magical bonding like what a Beast Master does, so it'll still be a regular animal with its own motivations relying on its own abilities. Every time the Ranger wants a charmed animal to do something, it should almost always still be a skill check.

People usually say Beast Master companions are underpowered because they're usually compared to well-optimized builds. While not amazing in combat like a hexblade-paladin multiclass or PAM fighter, a panther with +7 to hit dealing 1d6+5 damage when you're level 5 and can also take an attack yourself through Extra Attack is nothing to sneeze at. Plus they make decent tanks since your proficiency bonus gets added to their AC. At level 5, a giant crab would have 18AC, which is pretty respectable.

[Keltest]

I feel like my attempts to add color have focused this conversation on the wrong things. I chose "giant crocodile" because that's something my party faced early in their careers.

Can animals be trained without being rangers' companions? Are ranger companions way more powerful and useful than people on this forum make them out to be, because any other animal is useless for anything but riding or droving?

I think you need to look at the individual animal here to decide what it would do. Crocodiles are apparently somewhat social animals (which surprised me) and might be willing to share food or territory with you, to a point, and interpret a threat to you as a threat to itself where it otherwise wouldn't care. They wouldn't necessarily defer to you in all decisions, but would at least treat you as an accepted part of its life, like that one cousin you grew up with that you only see during holiday.

Something more solitary, meanwhile, could probably be prompted to ignore you when youre in its territory, as long as you don't actively impede it going about its life, but it certainly wouldn't care enough about you to help you for the sake of helping. The idea of something else being worth looking after for the sake of it simply isn't a concept its mind can comprehend. To motivate it to do anything for you, you need to offer it something it specifically wants and draw a direct connection between its actions and the result.

[da newt]

Crocks can't be trained - just like in real life, the reptilian brain is too simple - instincts are too strong.

Domestic animals and more intelligent animals can be trained to different levels - look at what people have trained dogs/horses to do, and if you add in the ability to speak with them I'd imagine that even more could be accomplished, but is still limited by physical and mental capability of the animal. (Giant Owl/Eagle has INT = 8, Ape = 6, Blink Dog (fey) = 10, but an owl bear = 3 and there is text about them being tough to train but 'savage companions', and the dog/mastiff has 3 INT, and horses 2 INT)

A beast-master ranger's companion is more than a trained animal, but they aren't very powerful (medium in size, CR 1/4 max) and have a high action economy cost - you must use an action to command it to do anything other than move (it won't even dodge unless you take an action to tell it to), until you get to 7th lvl then it can take the actions that a familiar from find familiar can, but with the additional cost of your bonus action. In some ways, a ritual cast 1st lvl spell is more powerful than the combined subclass features (and a pact of the Chain Warlock is WAY better).

If you play a small race PC, you can ride your companion, but that seems to be the best use of the subclass as far as I can figure out ...

There are Training rules for PCs (250 days, 250 GP = gain one proficiency) - if animals are considered just as capable of learning a new thing as a PC, it would take more than 8 months to teach your pet one proficiency ...

IMO - you'd have to house rule something in order to make a trained animal or even beast master companion animal any more useful than the find familiar spell (and then there's find steed ...).

[NorthernPhoenix]

The spell is very open to interpretation (as is the way in 5e) and i'm inclined to think giving a charitable interpretation to Rangers is reasonable. The Charm spells are worded so the DM can be very strict if he wants to reign things in, or be loose if that's more appropriate. So while it's true that AF doesn't always give you Dominate control, i think letting easyish handle animal checks take control of the creature is a charitable but reasonable take given the Rangers other issues. You're essentially just giving them what Beast Master should be anyway, with a built in way to reign things in if they abuse your lenience.

[Tanarii]

I had this exact situation with a Druid and a crocodile. I ruled that he couldn't expect the animal to leave it's natural environment and follow him around as a pseudo-companion. He used Speak with Animals and negotiated with them for safe passage on the way back out of their territory. In other words, it's charm person. Not Create Animal Companion.

Now war dogs vs ranger animal companion are an important thing for DMs to consider. I allowed them, and iirc them correctly here were my rulings:
- you can release the hounds with an attack command, an action, and a DC 10 check. Possibly higher if it's a really weird thing.
- player has no control over them once released without using actions and handling checks. DM judgement on if they run when wounded.
- calling them off I think I required DC 10 but individual checks. It's been a while.

Another thing with war dogs that's important is they're fragile. You can't have any players (not PCs) that are going to get upset when (not if) they die. And if you get a player that treats them like 25gp single use consumables someone will get upset.

[Segev]

I had this exact situation with a Druid and a crocodile. I ruled that he couldn't expect the animal to leave it's natural environment and follow him around as a pseudo-companion. He used Speak with Animals and negotiated with them for safe passage on the way back out of their territory.

In other words, it's charm person. Not Create Animal Companion.

That's fair.

Let's examine something a little more reasonable and tame (and technically would be a valid target for Ranger's Companion): a medium mastiff the ranger buys with gp in town. A dog such as this can be expected to be reasonably trainable, if not already well-trained, especially given that they're often sold as mounts for halflings and gnomes.

Does a combination of animal friendship and speak with animals do anything to help with getting this dog to be an asset to the party beyond being a mount? What can somebody with Animal Handling get such a creature to do? What do the spells enable, if anything?

Edit: You edited this in while I was writing the above. Heh.


I had this exact situation with a Druid and a crocodile. I ruled that he couldn't expect the animal to leave it's natural environment and follow him around as a pseudo-companion. He used Speak with Animals and negotiated with them for safe passage on the way back out of their territory. In other words, it's charm person. Not Create Animal Companion.
Now war dogs vs ranger animal companion are an important thing for DMs to consider. I allowed them, and iirc them correctly here were my rulings:
- you can release the hounds with an attack command, an action, and a DC 10 check. Possibly higher if it's a really weird thing.
- player has no control over them once released without using actions and handling checks. DM judgement on if they run when wounded.
- calling them off I think I required DC 10 but individual checks. It's been a while.
Another thing with war dogs that's important is they're fragile. You can't have any players (not PCs) that are going to get upset when (not if) they die.
Seems reasonable enough.

Anything prevent, say, a goblin ranger or barbarian or outlander or folk hero from doing this with something bigger, like a warg? They're monstrosities, not beasts, so no magic, but....

Also, did your rulings account for speak with animals, or were they about non-magically-understandable commands of the sort a real-life trainer might use? Would magically being understandable help at all?

Obviously, animal friendship would give you Advantage on the various checks to control the hounds.

[MrStabby]

Yes, true animal companions are meant to be way more helpful because of the bonuses they get to proficiencies from the Ranger and the features from Beast Master like Exceptional Training. Just "training" an animal is not magical bonding like what a Beast Master does, so it'll still be a regular animal with its own motivations relying on its own abilities. Every time the Ranger wants a charmed animal to do something, it should almost always still be a skill check.

People usually say Beast Master companions are underpowered because they're usually compared to well-optimized builds. While not amazing in combat like a hexblade-paladin multiclass or PAM fighter, a panther with +7 to hit dealing 1d6+5 damage when you're level 5 and can also take an attack yourself through Extra Attack is nothing to sneeze at. Plus they make decent tanks since your proficiency bonus gets added to their AC. At level 5, a giant crab would have 18AC, which is pretty respectable.

Whilst I think this is kind of true, I think it also comes down to balance being built around an assumption of no magic items. Once you start to give out magic swords and bows and stuff then the more power that sits with agents that cant use them, the more weak those options seem to be. The same goes for support spells; bless on a fighter increases accuracy on all the attacks they bring to the table, on a beastmaster... nope. Just the beastmaster attacks.

I think that if you are running a campaign that adds magic items then you need to give the beastmaster even more allowance.

[Segev]

Whilst I think this is kind of true, I think it also comes down to balance being built around an assumption of no magic items. Once you start to give out magic swords and bows and stuff then the more power that sits with agents that cant use them, the more weak those options seem to be. The same goes for support spells; bless on a fighter increases accuracy on all the attacks they bring to the table, on a beastmaster... nope. Just the beastmaster attacks.

I think that if you are running a campaign that adds magic items then you need to give the beastmaster even more allowance.

I alluded to this earlier, but animal companions able to wield weapons - even if they're not proficient - gain the Ranger's proficiency bonus to their to-hit score, so they at least scale as well as he does. (Technically, since proficiency for a CR 1/4 creature is +2, any creature getting the ranger's proficiency on top of their own is actually +2 more accurate, in theory, than would be expected for a proficient attack.) Flying monkeys, in this regard, could be interesting options.