Two halves of a whole adventurer: Beast Master with Humanoids.

[Whiskeyjack8044]

I've got this idea to play two characters at the same time. Obviously it goes against RAW and could be abused to the point of being over powered. Help me keep it from being too strong.

So one idea is to play a PC goblin Beast Master with an NPC goblin "beast". They would be brothers, the PC would be the smarter older brother and the NPC would be the more dimwitted brother.

Another Idea is BMR with the Noble background and a Gaurd as a "beast". Could be a body Gaurd or could be a squire.

I know the side kick rules exist, but I think this could be fun, what do you think?

[firelistener]

Mechanically, a goblin would work out being just slightly overpowered. It can make ranged attacks with its shortbow, which I don't think any CR1/4 or lower beast can do. If the DM allowed you to give the goblin magic or silvered weapons, the goblin becomes way more powerful than most beasts. Overall as DM, I think I might allow it but I'd ban the "beast" goblin from using items of any kind besides those in its monster stat block.

[NaughtyTiger]

We did that a a table (mute bound Orc) on the original PHB ranger.
Preferred enemy: Orc and elf.
that wasn't overpowered, we enjoyed it. (didn't feel as disposable since it was a sentient creature)

i dont expect it would get too strong with corrected PHB ranger rules. (dodge as standard)

sidekick rules are much stronger than BM.


If the DM allowed you to give the goblin magic or silvered weapons,
at level 7, beast attacks are considered magical.

[Mr Adventurer]

I've got this idea to play two characters at the same time. Obviously it goes against RAW and could be abused to the point of being over powered. Help me keep it from being too strong.

So one idea is to play a PC goblin Beast Master with an NPC goblin "beast". They would be brothers, the PC would be the smarter older brother and the NPC would be the more dimwitted brother.

Another Idea is BMR with the Noble background and a Gaurd as a "beast". Could be a body Gaurd or could be a squire.

I know the side kick rules exist, but I think this could be fun, what do you think?

I think equating a person of a certain kind, whether by mental capacity or social class or anything else, with a beast is troublesome.

[NaughtyTiger]

I think equating a person of a certain kind, whether by mental capacity or social class or anything else, with a beast is troublesome.

Rename the archetype to Oath Bound Ranger, now on to the meat of the question.

[8wGremlin]

to Clarify:

a BM ranger, that at 3rd level applies all the bonuses and penalties of a Ranger’s Companion to a HUMANOID, instead of a BEAST.
but you want to limit it to Goblin, Guard, or Squire (can't find this).

it's potent with Goblin, but not massively potent, you still have the limits of the Companion thing.
if you extended it to beyond those choices, it may get silly powerful with Apprentice Mages or Acolytes.

actually you can only command them to use the Attack, Dash, Disengage, or Help action

It's a cool idea and I'd DM for my group.

[HappyDaze]

I've got this idea to play two characters at the same time. Obviously it goes against RAW

Does the RAW say that a player controls one and only one player character?

[iTreeby]

Two halfling in a trench coat? A man riding a giant baby with a saddle? Two brothers? All of this and more can be yours with dm's permission and buy in! Inquire today!

[Desteplo]

I did this with a human twins. One frail using bow and one brute Using the stat block of a wolf. Basically playing the wolf like a fighter

Mechanically it would just be a wolf but in play you’d have to roleplay 2 people which is be interesting (try and avoid talking to yourself)

First 2 lvls I dual wielded without two weapon fighting style. They were twins sharing the same space. Inseparable

Lvl3+ she found she was good which a bow and picked it up after that, prompting the other to melee into a more standard fighting style

So after lvl3 they both found their stride (as a wolf able to trip making him feel similar to battlemaster and the other being a bowmen)

[JackPhoenix]

Does the RAW say that a player controls one and only one player character?

No, but it says BM companion has to be beast. A goblin (or a guard) is a humanoid.

[HappyDaze]

No, but it says BM companion has to be beast. A goblin (or a guard) is a humanoid.

My point was that he could simply ask the DM if it was OK for him to have 2 PCs in the game and to skip the idea of a BM companion altogether.

[Nagog]

My point was that he could simply ask the DM if it was OK for him to have 2 PCs in the game and to skip the idea of a BM companion altogether.

In my campaign, I've got a few players I've spoken with previously about playing 2 characters at a time, the second ones being ones I bring in that are often connected to their characters in some way. It allows me as a DM to throw more challenging monsters at them (because that's a lot of fun) as well as expand the player's connections throughout the world as these party members join and leave and perhaps later reconnect with the party.

[NaughtyTiger]

My point was that he could simply ask the DM if it was OK for him to have 2 PCs in the game and to skip the idea of a BM companion altogether.

Beastmaster isn't 2 PCs though. OP simply wanted a reskin of the Beastmaster. 2 PCs would be a major boost.

[HappyDaze]

Beastmaster isn't 2 PCs though. OP simply wanted a reskin of the Beastmaster. 2 PCs would be a major boost.

So? It's not hard to scale for an added PC. In fact, the rules for adding an extra PC (regardless of whether it has it's own player) are clearer and more balanced that most other ways of adding in another combatant.

[NaughtyTiger]

So? It's not hard to scale for an added PC. In fact, the rules for adding an extra PC (regardless of whether it has it's own player) are clearer and more balanced that most other ways of adding in another combatant.

I am looking at it from the point of view of another player at the table.

My one PC wizard is not as fun as the other guy's 2 PCs... I want 2 PCs...
wait, so do i...
now the table is up to 7 PCs for 4 players...

No i don't believe Dnd is balanced for 7 PCs, based on my AL experience.

but i am being nit-picky, and prolly overstepping

[HappyDaze]

I am looking at it from the point of view of another player at the table.

My one PC wizard is not as fun as the other guy's 2 PCs... I want 2 PCs...
wait, so do i...
now the table is up to 7 PCs for 4 players...

No i don't believe Dnd is balanced for 7 PCs, based on my AL experience.

but i am being nit-picky, and prolly overstepping

The DM can opt to challenge the group with situations that demand splitting the party. Sure, they can stick together and overwhelm half the challenge..while simultaneously failing the other half. If they do, the best they can hope for is a 50% success--a failing grade. The fun comes in being able to decide the mixes on the fly that will go off to face each challenge. Some will work out well, others will not.

[Whiskeyjack8044]

I think equating a person of a certain kind, whether by mental capacity or social class or anything else, with a beast is troublesome.

The term beast was being used to denote its mechanical function within the subclass, not its role or value in society.