Post Tasha's Ranger (Beast Master) Gripes and Potential Fixes

[DM7581]

Ran this by a community on Facebook, but it didn't seem like anyone read or understood what I had said, so I thought I'd bring it here.

So now that we have Tasha's out, how broken (or better) might it be to combine the animal companion features instead of having to choose between the two... but with a few tweaks?

Reason: the Beasts of Sky/Land/Water are much stronger than the base options (except, in some cases for damage or mounting options), but are kinda bleh. I mean, my wolf/panther/boar/badger ALL operate the exact same way. Boring. Same for my flying hawk/owl/bat or whatever.

What if we went back to the CR 1/4, Medium or smaller options, gave them the higher HP/lvl, and then the ability/skill check, DC, and save bonuses? Actually, I might argue to delay those bonuses to level 7, since it fits thematically with the name of the feature.

We can give variable HP/lvl based on size (Tiny: 3, Small: 4, Medium: 5), to follow Tasha's model. Granted Tiny beast would be much squishier (3 HP plus 3 HP/lvl) but they would likely be used to scout/skirmish, more than tank and hang up front.

--

I actually have expanded on the HP idea with another optional approach: the beast gains a number of HD equal to half the Ranger's level, as well as a bonus to HP per HD equal to half of the Ranger's proficiency bonus (maybe round this up? See example below).

In this case, Medium (d8 HD) beasts will be right between the core and Tasha's variant in HP in the low-mid levels, only surpassing the Tasha's variant at very high levels, and even then only by a few HP.

Tiny (d4 HD) and Small (d6 HD) beasts will be right around or just below core HP at low-mid levels, approaching core/Tasha's HP range in the higher levels.

Example: let's take everyone's favorite Flying Snake, at key levels. Note that under Tasha's variant, the flying snake is really just re-fluffed, generic flying beast with Flyby.

Levels 3-4:
Core: 12-16
Tasha's: 16-20
NEW: 13-17 (assuming max 4 HP at level one, 3 thereafter)

Levels 5-8:
Core: 20-24-28-32
Tasha's: 24-28-32-36
NEW: 17-21-21-25 (slightly squishier than both core and Tasha's, but with the better mechanics)

Levels 9-12:
Core: 36-40-44-48
Tasha's: 40-44-48-52
NEW: 31-36-36-41

Levels 13-16:
Core: 52-56-60-64
Tasha's: 56-60-64-68
NEW: 41-46-46-51

Levels: 17-20
Core: 68-72-76-80
Tasha's: 72-76-80-84
NEW: 61-67-67-73 (very close to core)

Granted the Flying Snake in this new version will have much better skills, saves, action economy mechanics, but would still need to be kept safe (Flyby never becomes obsolete!) in this model.

--

Lastly, and this would be to "preserve" the integrity of TWFing, since the base beast's damage potential/effects are usually better than the Tasha's variants, I would NOT allow the beast to attack as a bonus action. Yes, a step backward (to where we were actually), but I find the Ranger's ability at 3rd level to attack twice per round regularly, and then at levels 5+, 3 times per round, to make TWFing obsolete, and frankly to be a bit too strong in damage.

With this variant, say a 3-4 level Ranger would have to decide to attack or have the beast attack (lame, yes, but an early level limitation), with the option to command them to do anything else as a bonus action, per Tasha's. In this case, I would allow a beast with multi-attack, if commanded to attack as the ranger's action, to be able to attack twice as they normally would.

At level 5+, per Tasha's, you can split your attacks when YOU take the attack action between you and your beast, which would net you 2 attacks. Again, barring Hunter's Mark stacking, the beast damage and/or rider effects are favorable, but since it is YOUR attack action, this would trigger a bonus action attack In the case of TWFing, allowing a total of 3 attacks. Note that this will NOT allow a beast to use multi-attack (since you are not using your action to command them to take the multi-attack action), although, at 11th level this restriction is removed, allowing all beast to attack twice. Hence at levels 11+ the Ranger can make 3 attacks per turn (1 for them and 2 for the beast), and keep their bonus action open (for spells, TWFing, etc.).

What do we get in the end? Our quirky beasts back instead of a generic blank slate, but with some much-needed save/skill bonuses, scaling save DCs (poison/prone effects), better HP for the most part, but different HP depending on the size of the beast (makes sense). We get a reason for a BM ranger to actually pick up TWFing (instead of making it strictly WORSE than any other style), and preserve the options of action economy without breaking them.

Thoughts?

[xyianth]

Fundamentally, I don't think there is a problem with the idea. But I don't like it.

To be clear, I am not unbiased when it comes to rangers. I'm on record (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=23498373&postcount=25) for hating the PHB ranger. Nothing short of a complete rewrite from the ground up would fix rangers for me.

But specific to your proposal, the part I don't like is the way it feels like you are picking and choosing which rules from both sets (PHB and TCE) you are applying. It also seems like part of your goal is to force TWFing without actually saying so. What if you wanted to play a ranger with a longbow? Why can't that ranger command their beast with a bonus action? The beast master ranger has plenty of design issues, but the TCE rules that let you command them to attack as a bonus action aren't one of them. It makes them consistent with how most summons work. As both a player and a DM, I like consistent rulings as it makes it less difficult to keep track of things.

I would actually like the idea better if the rules were based more on the TCE set. Add things like being able to customize the beasts presented to have animal forms, add in poisonous attacks or alternate senses as options at appropriate levels, modify two weapon fighting to better work with beast masters. (something like the two weapon fighting style also lets you command your beast to attack as part of making your bonus action attack; honestly that fighting style could use a little boost like that anyway) As evidenced by the fact that we now have what 4? attempts to revise the PHB rangers from WotC at this point, they clearly agree that the original PHB ranger mechanics need improvement.

I hope this doesn't come across as harsh, as that was not my intent. I agree that the beasts as written in TCE are kind of bland and that the hp/saves/skills etc are improvements that the animal companions of PHB beast masters sorely need.

[KorvinStarmast]

I hope this doesn't come across as harsh, as that was not my intent. I agree that the beasts as written in TCE are kind of bland and that the hp/saves/skills etc are improvements that the animal companions of PHB beast masters sorely need. The only thing on primal companions that I dislike is that they have some kind of markings that identify them as something other than a normal beast, and yet, they don't have magical attacks (like the Shepherd Druid summons do at level 6).

Why do they have to have a screaming set of markings that indicate "this isn't really a wolf!" (or some other beast)

Pointless, from where I sit.

And for my money, when PB = 4 I'd like to see primal companion upgradable to large size.

[P. G. Macer]

The only thing on primal companions that I dislike is that they have some kind of markings that identify them as something other than a normal beast, and yet, they don't have magical attacks (like the Shepherd Druid summons do at level 6).

Why do they have to have a screaming set of markings that indicate "this isn't really a wolf!" (or some other beast)

Pointless, from where I sit.

And for my money, when PB = 4 I'd like to see primal companion upgradable to large size.

The Beast Master’s Level 7 feature has been errata-ed to give all beast companions magical attacks, and while Tasha’s does mention mystical markings, it doesn’t say how blatant or subtle they are, so if you wanted, you could probably flavor it as a small birthmark on the wolf’s front right paw, for instance.

[KorvinStarmast]

The Beast Master’s Level 7 feature has been errata-ed to give all beast companions magical attacks Nice, sorry I missed that. Thanks!

and while Tasha’s does mention mystical markings, it doesn’t say how blatant or subtle they are, so if you wanted, you could probably flavor it as a small birthmark on the wolf’s front right paw, for instance. If I DM it, I may just bin it altogether or make it optional at the players choice - aesthetics vary in how attractive they are. :smallcool:

[DM7581]

Fundamentally, I don't think there is a problem with the idea. But I don't like it.

To be clear, I am not unbiased when it comes to rangers. I'm on record (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=23498373&postcount=25) for hating the PHB ranger. Nothing short of a complete rewrite from the ground up would fix rangers for me.

But specific to your proposal, the part I don't like is the way it feels like you are picking and choosing which rules from both sets (PHB and TCE) you are applying. It also seems like part of your goal is to force TWFing without actually saying so. What if you wanted to play a ranger with a longbow? Why can't that ranger command their beast with a bonus action? The beast master ranger has plenty of design issues, but the TCE rules that let you command them to attack as a bonus action aren't one of them. It makes them consistent with how most summons work. As both a player and a DM, I like consistent rulings as it makes it less difficult to keep track of things.

I would actually like the idea better if the rules were based more on the TCE set. Add things like being able to customize the beasts presented to have animal forms, add in poisonous attacks or alternate senses as options at appropriate levels, modify two weapon fighting to better work with beast masters. (something like the two weapon fighting style also lets you command your beast to attack as part of making your bonus action attack; honestly that fighting style could use a little boost like that anyway) As evidenced by the fact that we now have what 4? attempts to revise the PHB rangers from WotC at this point, they clearly agree that the original PHB ranger mechanics need improvement.

I hope this doesn't come across as harsh, as that was not my intent. I agree that the beasts as written in TCE are kind of bland and that the hp/saves/skills etc are improvements that the animal companions of PHB beast masters sorely need.

No, not harsh, actually I appreciate the more raw approach.

The reason it looks like I am trying to favor the TWF option is because... well, it is considered the weakest. Archery is still king for Rangers, and you can still command the beast as a bonus action, just not to attack.

So melee/TWFing Ranger A can swing 2 times with their beast joining in the fray for an additional attack (or 2 at 11th level), consuming their bonus action, while ranged/archery Ranger B can attack once and let their beast also attack the same amount of times.

That archery Ranger with their +2 to hit may opt to take Sharpshooter to stack that +10 damage bonus. In their case their damage is likely on par with their TWFing counterpart, but their bonus action remains open, likely for spells. Alternatively, they can attack twice (again potentially with that +10 damage bonus per hit) and still use their bonus action to command their beast to do anything else (except attack).

Sword and board and heavy/great weapon rangers (even without the actual fighting style) still edge the TWFers, so the fix seems obvious enough. Yes, it is technically taking away Tasha's shiny new toy, but my approach is that we never really needed it.

I thought merging the two beast options would be better/easier and preserve some of the quirks and flavor found in core.

In actual play, I find Tasha's ranger way too strong anyway - both in defense and especially offense.

I have toyed with some generic TWFing fixes, but they would imbalance so many other classes (namely rogue and monk), but realized, for the most part, that the issue was more so synchronizing with BM Rangers than anything else, and this update sort of fixes it.

By the way, most core/PHB beasts do a bit more damage than Tasha's variant options, so losing that one attack is not as detrimental as it may seem at face value, especially when you have so many other things competing for your bonus action anyway.

[DM7581]

Fundamentally, I don't think there is a problem with the idea. But I don't like it.

To be clear, I am not unbiased when it comes to rangers. I'm on record (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=23498373&postcount=25) for hating the PHB ranger. Nothing short of a complete rewrite from the ground up would fix rangers for me.

But specific to your proposal, the part I don't like is the way it feels like you are picking and choosing which rules from both sets (PHB and TCE) you are applying. It also seems like part of your goal is to force TWFing without actually saying so. What if you wanted to play a ranger with a longbow? Why can't that ranger command their beast with a bonus action? The beast master ranger has plenty of design issues, but the TCE rules that let you command them to attack as a bonus action aren't one of them. It makes them consistent with how most summons work. As both a player and a DM, I like consistent rulings as it makes it less difficult to keep track of things.

I would actually like the idea better if the rules were based more on the TCE set. Add things like being able to customize the beasts presented to have animal forms, add in poisonous attacks or alternate senses as options at appropriate levels, modify two weapon fighting to better work with beast masters. (something like the two weapon fighting style also lets you command your beast to attack as part of making your bonus action attack; honestly that fighting style could use a little boost like that anyway) As evidenced by the fact that we now have what 4? attempts to revise the PHB rangers from WotC at this point, they clearly agree that the original PHB ranger mechanics need improvement.

I hope this doesn't come across as harsh, as that was not my intent. I agree that the beasts as written in TCE are kind of bland and that the hp/saves/skills etc are improvements that the animal companions of PHB beast masters sorely need.

Oh and nice rant on the Ranger. I agree. I want to like them, but barring a full overhaul, been racking my head on some easier to implement fixes.

Have you considered scaling Favored Enemy damage or simply using the UA Favored Foe (not Tasha's)?

For Natural Explorer, Deft Explorer is a decent swap. Same for Primal Awareness.

I like the idea of giving both Hunters and BMs bonus spells too.

I'd reword or tweak some of the remaining Revised Ranger or Tasha's feature options as well. Yeah, some are ribbon items, but I'm okay with the Ranger being the most situationally skilled of the warrior types. That sort of is their niche.

For Foe Slayer I would simply allow Wis mod to attack and damage, against any enemy, but just once per round.

The known spells thing I am okay with. Given that they would gain 10 more spells this route, of course.

Other than that, Ranger, at least the concept of Ranger, has some potential.

On Paladins, I think they are just sick (in a too good way). Their smite is very/too strong an ability. Maybe limiting that to fiends/undead only (fey in the case of Ancients?) would balance them out.

[xyianth]

Thanks, I think I posted that comparison shortly after XGtE was published, so obviously it doesn't take into account anything in any sourcebooks after that. Probably could use an update or two now.

For me, I actually love the concept of a Ranger as a class, I just hated the way 5e implemented it. I have created quite a bit of homebrew for 5e, including my take on a Ranger but it is wildly different from what the PHB has and is therefore incompatible with any of the options printed. For one, it is based on intelligence instead of wisdom and is customizable via a similar system to invocations for warlocks. I like giving my players options to build with rather than making a single choice at a low level and then just following it; while this kind of goes against 5e's design philosophy, both my players and I love 'fiddly bits' as we call them that lets us tailor characters beyond simply choosing a subclass. At this point I have made enough customizable classes as to outnumber the original PHB base classes so they don't even feel out of place at our table. One of these days I am going to gather all my scattered notes and put together a nice homebrew pdf, but I've been kind of lazy on that goal.

Anyway, if your intent was to strengthen TWF for beast masters, then I think you've accomplished that. I often forget that the base version of 5e severely unbalanced ranged combat fighting styles over melee ones since that is one of many aspects I quickly fixed at our table.

[DM7581]

Thanks, I think I posted that comparison shortly after XGtE was published, so obviously it doesn't take into account anything in any sourcebooks after that. Probably could use an update or two now.

For me, I actually love the concept of a Ranger as a class, I just hated the way 5e implemented it. I have created quite a bit of homebrew for 5e, including my take on a Ranger but it is wildly different from what the PHB has and is therefore incompatible with any of the options printed. For one, it is based on intelligence instead of wisdom and is customizable via a similar system to invocations for warlocks. I like giving my players options to build with rather than making a single choice at a low level and then just following it; while this kind of goes against 5e's design philosophy, both my players and I love 'fiddly bits' as we call them that lets us tailor characters beyond simply choosing a subclass. At this point I have made enough customizable classes as to outnumber the original PHB base classes so they don't even feel out of place at our table. One of these days I am going to gather all my scattered notes and put together a nice homebrew pdf, but I've been kind of lazy on that goal.

Anyway, if your intent was to strengthen TWF for beast masters, then I think you've accomplished that. I often forget that the base version of 5e severely unbalanced ranged combat fighting styles over melee ones since that is one of many aspects I quickly fixed at our table.

Yeah my intent here was somewhat two-fold.

First in beast mechanics, restore the fun/flavor but increase utility (Tasha's skill bonuses) and survivability (Tasha's HP and save bonuses).

Beast damage in core is actually decent. Its just a matter of keeping your beast alive. When Tasha's introduced the bonus action to attack mechanic, predictable/potential damage round by round went up, and the Ranger is already a decent damage dealer. But that bonus damage to attack also neutered TWFing - I mean why not just go dueling and wield a shield if you get the same number if attacks anyway? I say neutered, but it made TWFing obsolete in a class that has so many other bonus action options (spells, changing HM targets), but who is historically a TWFing icon.

That looped me to my second intent, which was to salvage TWFing. Compared to dueling, archery, or heavy/great weapon fighting, the mechanic was simple - TWFing should grant an extra attack over the others. With feats like Sharpshooter (more damage), Polearm Master (added attack), and Dueling (perhaps with Shield Master or even WITH Polearm Master and a spear/quarterstaff, to capitalize on a number of perks), TWFing still isn't the best option, but at least its more viable and attractive, requiring less/no feat investment to work, at least in the early levels.

This way I can see a bow ranger still doing very good damage (albeit just once per round) with their beast attacking in concert. Yeah this leaves a bonus action open, but that was the case before and if you have a wolf tripping foes (attacking at advantage) or a snake laying down some good damage, whatever damage is lost with that extra attack is made up for.

For dueling or heavy weapon builds, the same goes, except with the right feat(s) that bonus action comes into play for an optional secondary attack (PAM, GWM) or shove (Shield Master). It still competes with some spells, but these are considered optimal melee builds.

If TWFing, you get your 2 attacks (plus the beasts), but it still costs your bonus action, which still competes with spells as before.

Generally speaking, in all scenarios, TWFing has a benefit instead of having none, which was the case. Some other builds are arguably more feat-intensive (points for TWFing), so I suppose that is as even as they can get, at least for rangers.

[sophontteks]

Beastmaster didn't neuter TWF. TWF has the exact dame issue across all classes. The only thing it gives is a bonus action, which makes it a weak fighting style.

TWF as written isn't even in the same league as archery, extra attack or not. When you add archery fighting style and sharpshooter, it's over.

I think you are looking the wrong direction here. Beastmaster is great. TWF sucks.

[DM7581]

Beastmaster didn't neuter TWF. TWF has the exact dame issue across all classes. The only thing it gives is a bonus action, which makes it a weak fighting style.

TWF as written isn't even in the same league as archery, extra attack or not. When you add archery fighting style and sharpshooter, it's over.

I think you are looking the wrong direction here. Beastmaster is great. TWF sucks.

Well, we have to look at other classes for this to be true. Yeah it is true with the Archery fighting style for the +2 to hit (to mitigate the -5 penalty for Sharpshooter), but not everyone has access to the fighting style and not everyone who uses ranged weapons will pick up the feat. Same goes the other way for those who might use TWFing as well as for reasons that they might not.

TWFing as written works very well for Rogues and gives a good early-mid level damage boost even to fighters. For all other classes, it gives the option for some extra damage, yes at the expense of defense/shield or other bonus action options, which is sort of the point. It is an all-out attack option. Not making it require a bonus action would make rogues (too?) good and then open up a whole can of works for monks as well as other balance issues for fighters.

Specifically to fighters, it does fall behind mid-late game, especially once feats (plural) and extra attacks levels 11+ come into play. Early-to-mid game, it is competitive and is less feat intensive than other, more optimal builds, which means that the character may have higher overall stats, HP, or other things they are good at (they can invest more in ability score increases than say a Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master). Its a tradeoff.

I think that is fair in its way. Not everything should be perfectly balanced and if a fighter wants to use TWFing because of the early game damage boost, and stick to it late game, it will not cripple them. Sure, other fighting styles will be slightly better, but it does not make TWFing useless or obsolete, as it does with the BM.

You have some valid points, but we can't say that TWFing (in general) is obsolete. It isn't. Rogues use it as-is. Fighters can too. So can other classes, if they are desperate (no secondary attack stat damage, of course). Rangers should be able to use it without too much issue. They already have competing issues with spells and such. This is where the problem lies.

They already compete with many favorable spells and Hunter's Mark. This is something we just have to deal with short of a class/spell/magic system rewrite. The goal is to not layer on more "inconveniences" to make certain things that should be viable, not.

For Beast Masters, especially under Tasha's rule, TWFing becomes truly obsolete. You really cannot benefit from it unless your best does nothing at all (okay, they can move and Dodge for free). It becomes an extremely situational option that may never well be used, let alone pick up the fighting style for. If we give the beast the option to attack as a bonus action, you might as well strap on a shield.

Okay, so your beast died, you are fighting the big bad, and are dual wielding with Hunter's Mark up. Have at it. But this is 100% exclusive from the beast. This is likely the only case a BM ranger might dual wield, and in such a case they will likely not have picked the fighting style anyway, so that secondary attack bonus will be limited to Hunter's Mark damage, which may actually be worthwhile in this case.

Or you have a pet but they always do nothing (you just have him in your backpack for fun). Great, have at it again, but now you have a ranger with no archetype/features because you want to swing 2 swords. Might as well just buy a hamster and keep him and be a Hunter or whatever. Go for the eyes, boo!

To add insult to injury, the already VERY strong archery, dueling, and great weapon builds get even better with the extra bonus action attack option. TWFing? Well, they are in a position where they gain nothing, and what they can do conflicts directly with the benefit of having the beast.

Counterpoint: Then don't use two-weapon fighting.
Response: No, that is not a fix. Ignoring the problem does not fix the issue.

Counterpoint: Going back to the beast taking up your action/one of your attacks will weaken the Ranger.
Response: Sure... EXCEPT in the case of TWFing. We've already established that Archery, Dueling, and great weapon builds are so strong, and that beast damage, especially with the core BM options can be favorable due to poison/prone effects, not to mention the 2 attacks at levels 11+. Why is there an issue? Even the core BM, with all of its flaws, from some posts/analyses I've read are not bad damage dealers anyway. They do keep up (outside of TWFing, of course). Other fixes I proposed give the HP, skill, and save boost of Tasha's, so that helps with a lot of the survivability and utility issues as well.

Counterpoint: But Tasha's lets us attack more with the beast (I don't want my shiny new toy taken away!)
Response: Yes, but you have either less damage with Tasha's beast or fewer/no rider effects compared with the core options. It is difficult to try to pounce every turn, but your Wolf will try to knock prone every attack. Giant Poisonous Snake with poison damage and reach? Yes please. Even the Flying Snake can duck in and out of combat and deal decent damage. Oh and then there is the flying mount thing for small PCs. That just went away in Tasha's without anyone seeming to care.

Will this fix everything? No, but it at least it gives a path for TWFing that Rangers should somewhat be good at (or really, capable of doing at all). I've abandoned that they should be the "best at" it, but hey, its progress.

I have not run the numbers, but since we know that TWFing is generally sub-optimal compared to the other options, how is granting it its extra attack going to worsen the ranger when it was already a fine damage dealer prior to Tasha's "fix?"

[sophontteks]

Well, we have to look at other classes for this to be true. Yeah it is true with the Archery fighting style for the +2 to hit (to mitigate the -5 penalty for Sharpshooter), but not everyone has access to the fighting style and not everyone who uses ranged weapons will pick up the feat. Same goes the other way for those who might use TWFing as well as for reasons that they might not.

TWFing as written works very well for Rogues and gives a good early-mid level damage boost even to fighters. For all other classes, it gives the option for some extra damage, yes at the expense of defense/shield or other bonus action options, which is sort of the point. It is an all-out attack option. Not making it require a bonus action would make rogues (too?) good and then open up a whole can of works for monks as well as other balance issues for fighters.

Specifically to fighters, it does fall behind mid-late game, especially once feats (plural) and extra attacks levels 11+ come into play. Early-to-mid game, it is competitive and is less feat intensive than other, more optimal builds, which means that the character may have higher overall stats, HP, or other things they are good at (they can invest more in ability score increases than say a Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master). Its a tradeoff.

I think that is fair in its way. Not everything should be perfectly balanced and if a fighter wants to use TWFing because of the early game damage boost, and stick to it late game, it will not cripple them. Sure, other fighting styles will be slightly better, but it does not make TWFing useless or obsolete, as it does with the BM.

You have some valid points, but we can't say that TWFing (in general) is obsolete. It isn't. Rogues use it as-is. Fighters can too. So can other classes, if they are desperate (no secondary attack stat damage, of course). Rangers should be able to use it without too much issue. They already have competing issues with spells and such. This is where the problem lies.


It's only good on swashbuckler rogues. For most rogues it competes with their bonus action, just like rangers, and doesn't hold up to using a ranged weapon.

It's terrible for fighters, who have access to archery fighting style, and, well, literally every other option is better. Same problem, competes with bonus action.

Fighters don't need multiple feats to beat it out. Both sharpshooter and Polearm master blow it out of the water.

The problem is TWF.

[xyianth]

You have some valid points, but we can't say that TWFing (in general) is obsolete. It isn't. Rogues use it as-is.

I've personally never seen a rogue TWFing. Now that TCE added steady aim, I'm pretty sure I'll never see it in the future either. Since rogues don't get the fighting style, you lose out on your modifier to damage without multiclassing. When you factor in feats, crossbow master is so much better in every way that matters. Hell, magic initiate is better. (for find familiar) I suppose if you were ever in a game with a rogue that didn't allow feats, multiclassing, or TCE, you might see non-arcane trickster/mastermind rogues TWFing. Maybe. That seems very niche to me.

[Segev]

As a very simplistic approach, what if Beastmaster Ranger could change his mind every time he bonds a new beast? He can summon one if he doesn't have a natural one bonded, and can bond a natural one if he wants to.

[Kane0]

This is something we just have to deal with short of a class/spell/magic system rewrite. The goal is to not layer on more "inconveniences" to make certain things that should be viable

Change base rules to allow weapons with the Thrown property to be drawn freely like ammunition is
Change TWF Fighting style to allow non-light weapons
Change Dual Wielder feat to:
- Add stat to damage of TWF attack
- Make a TWF attack as part of attack action instead of using a bonus action (and you cannot then make another attack using your Bonus Action on the same turn)
- Grant +1 AC when dual wielding (unchanged)

There. TWF fixed without grand sweeping changes to the system.

Now let's move on to the BM specifically.


R
What if we went back to the CR 1/4, Medium or smaller options, gave them the higher HP/lvl, and then the ability/skill check, DC, and save bonuses? Actually, I might argue to delay those bonuses to level 7, since it fits thematically with the name of the feature.

We can give variable HP/lvl based on size (Tiny: 3, Small: 4, Medium: 5), to follow Tasha's model. Granted Tiny beast would be much squishier (3 HP plus 3 HP/lvl) but they would likely be used to scout/skirmish, more than tank and hang up front.

--

I actually have expanded on the HP idea with another optional approach: the beast gains a number of HD equal to half the Ranger's level, as well as a bonus to HP per HD equal to half of the Ranger's proficiency bonus (maybe round this up? See example below).

In this case, Medium (d8 HD) beasts will be right between the core and Tasha's variant in HP in the low-mid levels, only surpassing the Tasha's variant at very high levels, and even then only by a few HP.

Tiny (d4 HD) and Small (d6 HD) beasts will be right around or just below core HP at low-mid levels, approaching core/Tasha's HP range in the higher levels.

Example: let's take everyone's favorite Flying Snake, at key levels. Note that under Tasha's variant, the flying snake is really just re-fluffed, generic flying beast with Flyby.

Levels 3-4:
Core: 12-16
Tasha's: 16-20
NEW: 13-17 (assuming max 4 HP at level one, 3 thereafter)

Levels 5-8:
Core: 20-24-28-32
Tasha's: 24-28-32-36
NEW: 17-21-21-25 (slightly squishier than both core and Tasha's, but with the better mechanics)

Levels 9-12:
Core: 36-40-44-48
Tasha's: 40-44-48-52
NEW: 31-36-36-41

Levels 13-16:
Core: 52-56-60-64
Tasha's: 56-60-64-68
NEW: 41-46-46-51

Levels: 17-20
Core: 68-72-76-80
Tasha's: 72-76-80-84
NEW: 61-67-67-73 (very close to core)

Granted the Flying Snake in this new version will have much better skills, saves, action economy mechanics, but would still need to be kept safe (Flyby never becomes obsolete!) in this model.

--

What do we get in the end? Our quirky beasts back instead of a generic blank slate, but with some much-needed save/skill bonuses, scaling save DCs (poison/prone effects), better HP for the most part, but different HP depending on the size of the beast (makes sense). We get a reason for a BM ranger to actually pick up TWFing (instead of making it strictly WORSE than any other style), and preserve the options of action economy without breaking them.

Thoughts?

It appears to me what you're looking for is the basic statblock and progression of the Tasha's beasts (because those are more viable and better scaling) without giving up on getting the unique features like Flyby, Grab, Pack Tactics, etc (because those are flavorful differentiations).

Which is fine. Personally I prefer having 2-3 good statblocks to choose from. If you want one of those features from MM creatures then you make a sacrifice elsewhere, like AC, Damage output, HP, etc.

To codify that, you can use Beast of the Land/Sea/Sky but if you want them to have a feature that a PHB Beastmaster Beast could have that reduces their AC by 2. Make a list of the valid options if you like, and state explicitly you can only pick one.

[DM7581]

I'm not familiar to all the newest enhancements to the other classes (the Rogue example for instance), but TWFing is okay at lower levels. This is sort of known. When feats and multiple attacks come in, then yes it falls behind, but for games running up to level 8 or so, a fighter would do just fine. After that, eh, not so much, but again, being sub-optimal does not mean it is obsolete.

My argument for the (BM) Ranger is that he has no net gain. As a matter of fact, if he commits to dual wielding, his beast just sits there doing nothing. This is the problem.

An archer fighter doesn't get a bonus action to attack, a TWFing one does, so at least there is a situation where you might use it. Having the beast attack as a bonus action just gives the archer, who is already better than the TWFer, yet another edge. It doesn't make sense in balance to even propose this. Not sure how this snuck under.

For the BM, everyone essentially gets a free bonus action attack, so TWFing really becomes useless (at least as a fighting style to pick up). It will then default to a very situational fallback instead of a primary build style. Thats the difference.

--

Just for fun (or in spite of), what if I made a dual wielding ranger beast master who always engaged in TWFing and would yell at his beast (roleplaying) to help/attack (as I rushed the line), but because of the mechanics of the game, he wouldn't, and instead moved up with me and took the default dodge action.

Yeah, I'm sure I'd have fun with it, and wouldn't be totally useless, but my beast would be, and I would have opted for an archetype that adds nothing of material value to my character in combat, barring the extra body and some potential/situational opportunity attacks.

Yeah he can be a scout, buddy, and role-playing add, but not much an asset in battle.

[DM7581]

Change base rules to allow weapons with the Thrown property to be drawn freely like ammunition is
Change TWF Fighting style to allow non-light weapons
Change Dual Wielder feat to:
- Add stat to damage of TWF attack
- Make a TWF attack as part of attack action instead of using a bonus action (and you cannot then make another attack using your Bonus Action on the same turn)
- Grant +1 AC when dual wielding (unchanged)

There. TWF fixed without grand sweeping changes to the system.

Now let's move on to the BM specifically.



It appears to me what you're looking for is the basic statblock and progression of the Tasha's beasts (because those are more viable and better scaling) without giving up on getting the unique features like Flyby, Grab, Pack Tactics, etc (because those are flavorful differentiations).

Which is fine. Personally I prefer having 2-3 good statblocks to choose from. If you want one of those features from MM creatures then you make a sacrifice elsewhere, like AC, Damage output, HP, etc.

To codify that, you can use Beast of the Land/Sea/Sky but if you want them to have a feature that a PHB Beastmaster Beast could have that reduces their AC by 2. Make a list of the valid options if you like, and state explicitly you can only pick one.

That's an interesting take on TWFing. I'll look into it.

For the beast, thats a strange way to pick and choose. I figured that "losing" the bonus action attack component makes up for the different beast/flavor options, since its not all gain and no loss. The beasts are squishy as it is, why make them suffer more (even if they have slightly more HP).

Of course this is all in homebrew territory and even the head honchos at Wizards have reduced dissatisfaction with the beast master with a work with your DM approach. And unless the DM is really RAW strict, he'll bend.

[xyianth]

The bonus action attack thing didn't 'sneak in' as a stealth buff to archers. Literally every summon, companion, pet, etc... since the PHB uses the exact same mechanic. The mechanics for summons/pets/companions were all over the place at the start of 5e: chain pact familiars traded attack actions, animate dead minions are commanded as a group with a single bonus action, ranger's beast companion was a weird mix of both attack action and bonus action, conjure X spells were commanded as a non-action, etc... This is very clearly an example of a mechanic that was refined after the PHB was published.

If anything about this wasn't thought through or playtested it was the balance of TWF against literally any other fighting style. I personally think that the original vision for 5e was to make bonus action attacks rare or conditional, and then that got changed without going back to redesign TWF.

[stoutstien]

The only real issue with Tasha's BM rules is making the ranger MaD. having the new blocks key of wisdom makes sense but it's also a pretty unnecessary restriction on a class that feels unnecessary to begin with.

they probably should have an additional feature at level three that allows their personal attacks and hit bonuses to be based off wisdom as well.

[DM7581]

The bonus action attack thing didn't 'sneak in' as a stealth buff to archers. Literally every summon, companion, pet, etc... since the PHB uses the exact same mechanic. The mechanics for summons/pets/companions were all over the place at the start of 5e: chain pact familiars traded attack actions, animate dead minions are commanded as a group with a single bonus action, ranger's beast companion was a weird mix of both attack action and bonus action, conjure X spells were commanded as a non-action, etc... This is very clearly an example of a mechanic that was refined after the PHB was published.

If anything about this wasn't thought through or playtested it was the balance of TWF against literally any other fighting style. I personally think that the original vision for 5e was to make bonus action attacks rare or conditional, and then that got changed without going back to redesign TWF.

I only say snuck in, in the sense that they must have known that they were just making TWFing even less desirable than it already was.

Yes, the Bonus Action mechanic is better, and works for the Artificer (as well as most casters), but the Ranger has a lot of pressure in how its core/key spells work and how they compete for that Bonus Action, and of course, in TWFing, where back in the olden days, was really Rangers thing (1e and onward).

Yeah, TWFing is messed up, I get it. Actually the BM I'm playing doesn't even have the fighting style (although I have dual wielded before for HM), but in having played him, I feel that Tasha's beefed up companion is a bit much offensively (allowing me 3 attacks per round with a shield/bow), and I always feel bad for that guy who wants to TWF but doesn't because it kinda sucks, so I wanted to have the houserule up and ready.

[xyianth]

I think the 3 attacks per round thing is just the new normal honestly. Bards, Druids, Artificers, Warlocks, Fighters, Paladins, Monks, and Rangers all have several options to basically get that without conditions by level 5 now. Clerics can sort of do it with spiritual weapon, spirit guardians, and their normal attack. Wizards can sort of do it with a few setups, Sorcerers without Warlock levels have a tough time of it, but when was the last time you saw a pure Sorcerer? Rogues are basically the only ones that can't do it, and that is because they scale damage not number of attacks.

When comparing it to the balance point in the PHB, I agree 3 attacks was supposed to be something special; but I don't think that is true anymore. Whether that is a good or bad thing is of course subjective.

[LudicSavant]

The trouble with the Beast Master is that it's a bad design for reasons outside of mere balance, so a simple tweaking of the numbers cannot fix it.

Perhaps the biggest problem with its design is the "use a bonus action to command it, or else it Dodges" aspect. This just leads to all kinds of issues where your beast feels like a badly-programmed AI companion (by even the awful standards of AI companions from games made 20 years ago) rather than a roleplaying game Lassie that is capable of doing something other than standing there dumbly when you're, say, Dominated. Let alone basic tasks like being able to fetch something more than 6 seconds away without constant encouragement.

This is clearly intended to balance out action economy... but it's an awfully ham-fisted way to go about it, since it sacrifices the ability of your dog to do basic things a dog can. You should expect your companions to have more creature-like intelligence in a tabletop roleplaying game than a badly programmed videogame, not less!

It would have been so easy to balance out the action economy in a more elegant fashion. Balance the beast's action against the existing opportunity cost (losing Extra Attack and the subclass features of other rangers) and if you want the beast to be stronger than that / involve more direct interaction from the Beastmaster, have the Beast Master spend their actions to buff the beast's actions, rather than spending their actions to merely give it basic sanity.

[Segev]

It would have been so easy to balance out the action economy in a more elegant fashion. Balance the beast's action against the existing opportunity cost (losing Extra Attack and the subclass features of other rangers) and if you want the beast to be stronger than that / involve more direct interaction from the Beastmaster, have the Beast Master spend their actions to buff the beast's actions, rather than spending their actions to merely give it basic sanity.

I'd be interested to see more ideas for elegant ways to balance out the action economy. I agree with you that it's badly and ham-fistedly done, but I don't see "against the extra attack as an opportunity cost" working for the Ranger, unless they put the extra attack as a subclass feature on literally every subclass except the beastmaster, and stripped it from the base class. Or had a very inelegant "Beastmaster rangers don't get an extra attack at level 5" mechanic.

Unless I misunderstand what you're suggesting, in which case I invite you to elaborate, because again, I'd be interested in seeing elegant action economy solutions.

[xyianth]

I'd be interested to see more ideas for elegant ways to balance out the action economy. I agree with you that it's badly and ham-fistedly done, but I don't see "against the extra attack as an opportunity cost" working for the Ranger, unless they put the extra attack as a subclass feature on literally every subclass except the beastmaster, and stripped it from the base class. Or had a very inelegant "Beastmaster rangers don't get an extra attack at level 5" mechanic.

Unless I misunderstand what you're suggesting, in which case I invite you to elaborate, because again, I'd be interested in seeing elegant action economy solutions.

Ironically, that is exactly what they did with the first revised ranger in UA. link (https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/UA_RevisedRanger.pdf)

[Osuniev]

I would NOT allow the beast to attack as a bonus action. Yes, a step backward (to where we were actually), but I find the Ranger's ability at 3rd level to attack twice per round regularly, and then at levels 5+, 3 times per round, to make TWFing obsolete, and frankly to be a bit too strong in damage.

With this variant, say a 3-4 level Ranger would have to decide to attack or have the beast attack (lame, yes, but an early level limitation), with the option to command them to do anything else as a bonus action, per Tasha's. In this case, I would allow a beast with multi-attack, if commanded to attack as the ranger's action, to be able to attack twice as they normally would.

At level 5+, per Tasha's, you can split your attacks when YOU take the attack action between you and your beast, which would net you 2 attacks. Again, barring Hunter's Mark stacking, the beast damage and/or rider effects are favorable, but since it is YOUR attack action, this would trigger a bonus action attack In the case of TWFing, allowing a total of 3 attacks. Note that this will NOT allow a beast to use multi-attack (since you are not using your action to command them to take the multi-attack action), although, at 11th level this restriction is removed, allowing all beast to attack twice. Hence at levels 11+ the Ranger can make 3 attacks per turn (1 for them and 2 for the beast), and keep their bonus action open (for spells, TWFing, etc.).

What do we get in the end? Our quirky beasts back instead of a generic blank slate, but with some much-needed save/skill bonuses, scaling save DCs (poison/prone effects), better HP for the most part, but different HP depending on the size of the beast (makes sense). We get a reason for a BM ranger to actually pick up TWFing (instead of making it strictly WORSE than any other style), and preserve the options of action economy without breaking them.

Thoughts?

I actually did the same thing that you did for my player !

She really wanted to have a pet Badger (well, Giant Badger), and was so distraught when she realized it couldn't multiattack (making it rather weak compared to the Wolf or Panther), so I gave it the Charge ability of the Beast of the Land (+1d6 damage if it runs at least 20 feet).

I feel it creates an interesting choice every turn for the ranger :
- do I attack or have my Beast attack ?
- If I attack do I use my bonus action for a spell (so many ranger spells are Bonus Actions ! Such a bad synergy with Tasha's BM !), or to order my companion to Help/Disengage)

I fluff the default "Dodge" action as her badger snarling at the enemy, looking for the right moment to strike (it can do attack of opportunities !) and of course, I always describe the advantage it grants by flanking as it biting the enemy's leg or something... It doesn't feel like a dumb AI, and actually it feels very much like a dog would be in combat...



Typical turn of my Ranger (when she's not mounting her Badger, because she's a Gnome !) :
- turn 1 :

ACTION : order Glob the Badger to Charge,
MOVE : position herself and cast a
BA spell such as Ensnaring Strike or Hail of Thorns (the spell only takes effect at her next attack)

- turn 2 :

BA : Orders the Badger to Disengage
MOVES herself to remain out of melee, and the Badger, so he either flanks with the Paladin or gets ready to Charge next turn
ACTION : Attack (and trigger the spell cast turn 1), marks the target with Favored Foe
- turn 3 :

BA : orders the Badger to Help
ACTION : Attacks with Advantage and Favored Foe

etc....

Every turn has multiple interesting choices, while TCoE Beastmaster is basically attack/attack which is powerful but boring. I feel between Help/Disengage/Dodge/Fetch there are many more tactical choices which disappear if the attack action has the same cost, and on the other hand having the option of Attacking with one of her attacks lets her use her BA for something else, so every turn she and Glob are both doing something. They feel like a team !

The real problem of the PHB Beastmaster was that the pets were less useful than familiars (and very fragile).

Of course she's only lvl 3 at the moment, we'll see how she feels at lvl 5.

[Asisreo1]

The problem was never balance. It was the expectations of the subclass.

Everyone imagined having a pet for the subclass which the BM ranger was definitely NOT designed to be. Effectively, there was no "pet" class in D&D because WoTC saw that those classes were way too overpowered in previous editions.

BM Ranger was a Commander character and had a unit that it could command for its action that usually provided better support in the form of damage, defense, or positioning.

Pets were actually supposed to just be a NPC character tied to a PC that the DM might give full control to. No worries about imperfect balance, the DM could allow a Red Dragon Wyrmling to be this one specific character's pet and the DM can sweat balancing this specific instance as he sees it.

But that's not what people wanted to play. Give a player a wolf, they'll make it a dog. So naturally people were upset that commands took entire actions and the beast could just die. There was only mechanical benefits but there were harsh roleplay penalties.

Attaching your character to a BM's companion is like attaching your character to your highest level spell slot. You either avoid using it but are generally weaker or use it to its fullest potential but your character's roleplay start to suck.

That's why Post-Tasha's BM Companion gives the BA attack and is generally bulkier. Its significantly weaker than other BM options by far, but it became the class's first true "pet" class.

[DM7581]

So, I've been reading around and if it is the case that Tasha's regular third beast attack as a bonus action does not break the Ranger as I've mentioned - keeping in mind that I am comparing the Ranger with his own potential and not against the potential of others - then perhaps a TWFing fix is what is needed.

The only counterpoint is that TWFing allows very good synergy with Dex, and while probably not as good DPR as other builds, that counts for something in saves, skills, AC, and even initiative.

Even at high levels and say you get that Belt of Storm Giant Strength (29, +9), well, your light/finesse attacks can still use Str, so now you are better than your Great Weapon and Dueling brethren since you have that 29 Str and likely a 20 Dex too. They probably have a natural 20 Str, but much lower Dex due to their commitment to their fighting style.

At this point, since Archery only uses Dex, they can't really benefit from this, but they still do get the other Dex bonuses obviously.

Anyway, these are some reasons why TWFing should NOT be changed, but I did read some simple fixes to not break it.

Two-Weapon Fighting (rule):

Core:
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

Fix:
Once per turn, when you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can also attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You must decide that you are engaging in two-weapon fighting before the first attack is made and cannot make any additional attacks with your bonus action this round if used this way.
You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative, unless you opt for the second attack to be made using a bonus action.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

This potentially frees up your bonus action, but will limit attack stacking (Monks), and looks like it will synchronize well with Rangers, even if they don't pick up the Fighting Style. In the case of Rogues, they do get that extra attack in, and even without their ability bonus, it may be OP, but hey, if they are in melee, I say have at it. Added the once per turn line to limit Fighters going nova with Action Surge.

Two-Weapon Fighting (fighting style):

Core:
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack.

Fix:
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack, even if it is not made using your bonus action.

This is a more committed form of the base rule. You still cannot make any bonus action attacks, but that extra attack per round is still limited to once per turn, so no Action Surge stacking. This will be addressed with the Extra Attack (2) feature (below).

Dual Wielder (feat):

Core:
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
•You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
•You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
•You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.

Fix:

You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
•You gain a bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand. This bonus is equal to half of your proficiency bonus.
•You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
•You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.

An early +1 to AC is okay, but in comparison to a shield user, who will likely get stronger and stronger magical shields (and also end up coming close in damage to a dual wielder), it lags in later levels. Giving a scaling bonus helps a committed dual wielder keep up not only in damage, but also defense, keeping it right in between the sword and board (defense heavy) and heavy weapon (offense heavy) styles. AC bonus would be +1 (levels 1-8), +2 (levels 9-16), and +3 (levels 17-20). Not OP in my opinion at all.

Extra Attack (2) (feature):

Core:
At 11th level, you can attack three times whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.

Fix:
At 11th level, you can attack three times whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. If engaging in two-weapon fighting, you may also make an additional attack with your second weapon as a bonus action, even if the first attack was made as part of your Attack action.

This specifically breaks the base rule of not being able to use a bonus action for an extra attack, giving a level 11 Fighter who dual wields 5 attacks per round (8 if they Action Surges). I considered this as a base Extra Attack feature add-on, but thought it may be a bit much at that level (again, maybe OP for Rangers, Bards, Barbarians, etc.), so perhaps keeping it at Fighter-only territory would work, since they are the ones who see the biggest disparity with Two-Weapon Fighting and other styles at this level and higher. When they gain that fourth attack, it does not do much for this tweak (6 attacks or 10 if using Action Surge vs. 4 and 8), so the net gain is still just 1 attack unless they forfeit thir bonus action for the second. Polearm Masters still get that second attack, as do Great Weapon Masters who crit/cleave, and as do Shield Masters who shove (so the net gain really becomes 1 attack), but it is the Dual Wielder who should edge them in consistent damage, but not get the rider benefit of reach, higher shield AC (magic shields at this level). This also does not take into effect any -5 to hit, +10 damage circumstances, where the Dual Wielder will lag.

--

While most of these address damage/defense issues with Fighters, it does free up that Ranger bonus action (as well as everyone else's). Any critiques on why this might NOT work?

[sophontteks]

So, I've been reading around and if it is the case that Tasha's regular third beast attack as a bonus action does not break the Ranger as I've mentioned - keeping in mind that I am comparing the Ranger with his own potential and not against the potential of others - then perhaps a TWFing fix is what is needed.

The only counterpoint is that TWFing allows very good synergy with Dex, and while probably not as good DPR as other builds, that counts for something in saves, skills, AC, and even initiative.

Even at high levels and say you get that Belt of Storm Giant Strength (29, +9), well, your light/finesse attacks can still use Str, so now you are better than your Great Weapon and Dueling brethren since you have that 29 Str and likely a 20 Dex too. They probably have a natural 20 Str, but much lower Dex due to their commitment to their fighting style.

At this point, since Archery only uses Dex, they can't really benefit from this, but they still do get the other Dex bonuses obviously.


Dueling works with dex too. It allows a dex user to use a shield and it gives them a +2 to their damage roles. Then they can take shield mastery for a bonus action trip/push attack along with a bonus to dex saves, and the ability to take 0 damage on successful dex saves.

In your fixes I think you should stick to fixing the feat. On top of being weak, the feat lacks flavor. All of the other weapon feats have something that really helps them stand out as something unique. Like PAM's reaction attack, and shield master's bonuses to saves.

But, on a case-by-case basis, just letting your ranger make a second attack for free if they have two weapons, as a feat, probably wouldn't break anything.

[DM7581]

Dueling works with dex too. It allows a dex user to use a shield and it gives them a +2 to their damage roles. Then they can take shield mastery for a bonus action trip/push attack along with a bonus to dex saves, and the ability to take 0 damage on successful dex saves.

In your fixes I think you should stick to fixing the feat. On top of being weak, the feat lacks flavor. All of the other weapon feats have something that really helps them stand out as something unique. Like PAM's reaction attack, and shield master's bonuses to saves.

But, on a case-by-case basis, just letting your ranger make a second attack for free if they have two weapons, as a feat, probably wouldn't break anything.

Correct on the Dueling, which is more reason for 2WFing to get the bump.

I personally like the scaling AC bonus tweak to the feat, but that does not directly influence damage aside from possibly rolling the 2WFing bonus action attack into the main attack action.

The only issue is that we are not addressing late game/Fighter damage bonuses compared to dueling since we are still restricting the extra attack to 1.

Unless we do not limit it to once per round, and allow for Action Surge stacking, allowing 8 attacks at level 11+ and then 10 attacks at 20, all the while leaving the bonus action open.

This is sort of a flip, as currently 2WFing requires regular use of the bonus action. This feat completely leaves bonus actions open.

On the other end, the shield/PAM/great weapon feats all now give a bonus action option (shove, d4 butt attack, crit/cleave). Not a problem, really, if it works, but an interesting flip.

[DM7581]

Correct on the Dueling, which is more reason for 2WFing to get the bump.

I personally like the scaling AC bonus tweak to the feat, but that does not directly influence damage aside from possibly rolling the 2WFing bonus action attack into the main attack action.

The only issue is that we are not addressing late game/Fighter damage bonuses compared to dueling sice we are still restricting the extra attack to 1.

Unless we do not limit it to once per round, and allow for Action Surge stacking, allowing 8 attacks at level 11+ and then 10 attacks at 20, all the while leaving the bonus action open.

This is sort of a flip, as currently 2WFing requires regular use of the bonus action. This feat completely leaves bonus actions open.

On the other end, the shield/PAM/great weapon feats all now give a bonus action option (shove, d4 butt attack, crit/cleave). Not a problem, really, if it works, but an interesting flip.

Or that scaling AC bonus can be worded to require a bonus action, so it does not grant just a free attack every round (Fighters level 11+) and then creates an option/complication for all dual wielders in whether to use the bonus action for an AC boost, or any other action, i.e., spells/HM for Rangers, spells for Paladin/Bards/Warlock types, Second Wind for Fighters, and even that additional two-weapon fighting attack for Fighters level 11+ (if taken with the other modifications).

[Segev]

If the expectation for pets is that they're NPCs, perhaps the key is to lean more into the means of getting NPC assistants, and buffing them.

Beast Master (Revised)
You have a mystical bond with and mastery of beasts.

Beast Master Spells
At certain levels of Ranger, you learn new spells. These spells count as Ranger spells for you, but do not count against your number of Ranger spells known. You can cast any of these spells that are rituals as rituals.

3. animal friendship, beast bond, speak with animals
5. animal messenger, beast sense

Beast Trainer
When you take this archetype at level 3, you gain the ability to command beasts and bring the most out of them. As a bonus action, you may focus your will on a beast that is friendly to you or Charmed by you. Until the start of your next turn, that beast may add your Proficiency bonus to its attack and damage rolls.

When you attain 7th level, the affected beast counts its weapon attacks as magical while it adds your proficiency bonus to its attacks. Once per round when you take the attack action, you may give up one of your attacks to command the affected beast to make an attack of your choice with you selecting the target. You may command the beast to move up to its movement to get into range, but this movement counts against its movement on its next turn.

At 11th level, the chosen beast retains this bonus (and you can direct it each round) for a minute, or until you use a bonus action to grant this bonus to a different eligible beast.

Share Spells
Beginning at 15th level, when you cast a spell targeting yourself, you can also affect one beast of your choice that is friendly to you or Charmed by you, as long as that beast is within 30 feet of you.

[xyianth]

I still think it falls far short of other styles even with the changes. Personally, I think trying to limit nova potential on Action Surge use is a bad idea, since no such limit exists for spellcasters that dip into fighter for Action Surge. Allowing a fighter that has gone all-in on offense by forgoing a shield and wielding two weapons to nova doesn't seem out of place. I know you were focused more on comparing fighting styles directly, but I do think there is merit in taking an overall look at potential balance system-wide as well.

To me, it always seemed weird that the TWF fighting style and dual wielder feat had opposite goals. The fighting style does too little by simply making your bonus action attack into a normal attack, but this is clearly intended to be an offensive boost. The feat however gives very little in terms of offense boosts as it only allows you to change your off-hand attack from a d6 into a d8, if you change the weapon you are using. (If you are trying to build a dual dagger user, it does nothing for your offense) The scaling AC boost change is a good one, as +1 AC is never worth a feat imho. But even with this, the feat is still purely defensive in nature.

Personally, if I were to try and refine TWF to be more inline with other fighting style choices, I'd propose the following:

Without the fighting style or the feat, you can wield a light weapon in each hand and make an off-hand attack as a bonus action. You can add your ability modifier to damage as normal with this attack.
The fighting style allows you to instead make your off-hand attack as an additional attack as part of the Attack action. This attack explicitly stacks with any Extra Attack feature.
The feat gives you the following bonuses:
You gain a bonus to your AC while wielding two 1-handed weapons equal to half your proficiency bonus.
You can wield any two 1-handed weapons even if they are not light and can draw/stow them both
When attacked by a creature in melee, you can use your reaction to attempt to parry the blow while wielding two weapons. Make an attack roll, if your roll meets or exceeds the attack roll result of the attacking creature, you successfully parry the blow, negating all damage and effects from the attack. If your attack roll also meets or exceeds the AC of the opposing creature, you riposte the creature and deal damage as if you had hit it with a weapon attack.
This has several effects. First it makes two weapon fighting useful even without the fighting style or feat, though doing so does still come with the cost of not using a shield or non-light weapons. The fighting style changes the extra attack provided by TWF into a free* action allowing you to use your bonus action on other things. I don't think it is a problem to allow Action Surge to then benefit from TWF's extra attack in this manner, nor do I think a restriction needs to be placed on preventing other bonus action attacks. Most other sources of bonus action attacks are already not usable while TWFing with melee weapons. (specifically crossbow master, polearm master, and great weapon master are all incompatible) Monk's have to multiclass/use a feat to get access to the fighting style, so I am not too worried about the fighting style giving Monks an extra attack. The feat now gives the needed defensive boost and mechanical benefits but also gives something unique similar to other weapon focused feats. This one just focuses on your reaction instead of your bonus action.

With these changes I could see martial focused characters actually choosing to TWF instead of archery+sharpshooter/crossbow master or duelist+polearm master. Rogues especially would consider the feat as it gives more opportunity to sneak attack since reactions occur on different turns than your own. I don't think it would completely overshadow archery/polearms though as it still doesn't offer the flat damage boosts that scale with all attacks that those other styles offer.

[DM7581]

I still think it falls far short of other styles even with the changes. Personally, I think trying to limit nova potential on Action Surge use is a bad idea, since no such limit exists for spellcasters that dip into fighter for Action Surge. Allowing a fighter that has gone all-in on offense by forgoing a shield and wielding two weapons to nova doesn't seem out of place. I know you were focused more on comparing fighting styles directly, but I do think there is merit in taking an overall look at potential balance system-wide as well.

To me, it always seemed weird that the TWF fighting style and dual wielder feat had opposite goals. The fighting style does too little by simply making your bonus action attack into a normal attack, but this is clearly intended to be an offensive boost. The feat however gives very little in terms of offense boosts as it only allows you to change your off-hand attack from a d6 into a d8, if you change the weapon you are using. (If you are trying to build a dual dagger user, it does nothing for your offense) The scaling AC boost change is a good one, as +1 AC is never worth a feat imho. But even with this, the feat is still purely defensive in nature.

Personally, if I were to try and refine TWF to be more inline with other fighting style choices, I'd propose the following:

Without the fighting style or the feat, you can wield a light weapon in each hand and make an off-hand attack as a bonus action. You can add your ability modifier to damage as normal with this attack.
The fighting style allows you to instead make your off-hand attack as an additional attack as part of the Attack action. This attack explicitly stacks with any Extra Attack feature.
The feat gives you the following bonuses:
You gain a bonus to your AC while wielding two 1-handed weapons equal to half your proficiency bonus.
You can wield any two 1-handed weapons even if they are not light and can draw/stow them both
When attacked by a creature in melee, you can use your reaction to attempt to parry the blow while wielding two weapons. Make an attack roll, if your roll meets or exceeds the attack roll result of the attacking creature, you successfully parry the blow, negating all damage and effects from the attack. If your attack roll also meets or exceeds the AC of the opposing creature, you riposte the creature and deal damage as if you had hit it with a weapon attack.
This has several effects. First it makes two weapon fighting useful even without the fighting style or feat, though doing so does still come with the cost of not using a shield or non-light weapons. The fighting style changes the extra attack provided by TWF into a free* action allowing you to use your bonus action on other things. I don't think it is a problem to allow Action Surge to then benefit from TWF's extra attack in this manner, nor do I think a restriction needs to be placed on preventing other bonus action attacks. Most other sources of bonus action attacks are already not usable while TWFing with melee weapons. (specifically crossbow master, polearm master, and great weapon master are all incompatible) Monk's have to multiclass/use a feat to get access to the fighting style, so I am not too worried about the fighting style giving Monks an extra attack. The feat now gives the needed defensive boost and mechanical benefits but also gives something unique similar to other weapon focused feats. This one just focuses on your reaction instead of your bonus action.

With these changes I could see martial focused characters actually choosing to TWF instead of archery+sharpshooter/crossbow master or duelist+polearm master. Rogues especially would consider the feat as it gives more opportunity to sneak attack since reactions occur on different turns than your own. I don't think it would completely overshadow archery/polearms though as it still doesn't offer the flat damage boosts that scale with all attacks that those other styles offer.

I'm only cautious on the nova thing because I have heard it from others in this and other communities how it might be open to abuse for fighters/monks, in making two-weapon fighting clearly better than the other styles (dueling/great weapon). The way I see it, both hands are committed, so for casters that means another feat investment (War Caster), which is yet another limitation that great weapon users nd archers don't really have to worry about.

I actually am on board with the free two-weapon fighting bonus action ability damage and the fighting style making it become a part of the attack action.

Still iffy on whether the (scaling) AC bonus should remain static or require a bonus action to activate (like a stance or swirling blades). This would place an action economy limitation on the style instead of it being too good both offensively and defensively. In such a case that rogue needs to think about hanging up front or disengaging, that half caster about their spells, the fighter on his second wind, and so on.

I really like your take. That last take is interesting and gives this fighting style a reaction to use, which would make it unique in that regard.

Well, Sentinel gets a situational reaction and is usually picked up along with PAM and GWM, but this one would be used more I think (why not get both?). Plus it sort of competes with Defensive Duelist, but in a good way, giving dual wielders the option of how they want their characters to run defensively, plus it isn't limited to just light/finesse weapons.

So here is a build issue(?). Say I'm an 11+ level fighter with a bunch of feats and the TWFing style. I have PAM and the Dual Wielder feat. Main stat is maxed, yadda yadda. Typical build otherwise.

Weapons of choice: 2 spears. I get 4 attacks per round (1d6+mod) plus the blunt end for the bonus action d4+mod, and essentially a quasi-parry/counter attack maneuver as a reaction (which, barring magic, should be wide open) built in with either a static or bonus action (replaces the blunt end d4 attack) AC bonus.

Granted I am limited to d6s, but the weapons can also be thrown, so there is inherent flexibility there. When I action surge, it goes to (1d6+mod)x4 plus 1d4+mod. 9 attacks total at the end of the day. At level 20, I'm at a base 5 plus bonus action (6) attacks, and 11 with an action surge.

For kicks, say I went half-orc and champion. Now I'm also fishing for crits, day and night.

Yeah, I'm limited to going Str vs Dex here, but seems very strong.

At this point, I'd have to run the numbers against some other potential builds, but at face value it seems a bit OP.

[Kane0]

TWF (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?626841-Best-use-of-the-bonus-action-(between-TWF-PAM-and-CBE)-for-a-Hexblade-Warlock) has (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?618069-TWF-style-with-Dual-Wielder-feat-vs-Two-Handed-Weapon-fighting) been (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?616959-How-Does-TWF-Look-Without-PAE-XBE) discussed (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?601118-Taking-another-look-at-dual-wielding) here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?596803-Help-A-more-satisfying-TWF-build) a few (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?590364-Why-does-PAM-get-EVERYTHING-dual-wield-gets-plus-more) times (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?585006-TWF-redux-thoughts-after-table-time) before (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?575772-Spitballing-a-(yet-another)-fix-for-TWF).

Edit:
TL;DR TWF is 'fine' until Extra Attack and/or other attacks/uses for your Bonus Action come into conflict with it, and the style/feat simply aren't as good as their counterparts for other weapon options.
The most widely agreed upon solution (not unanimous, just most agreeable so far) is to somehow remove the bonus action restriction for TWF. Other concerns are somewhat secondary.
This typically takes the form of buffing the feat or style to allow TWF as part of the attack action (often with clauses like 'when you get extra attack' and 'you can't also use your BA for another attack).

[xyianth]

I admit, I forgot about dual wielding spears/quarterstaves because the image that paints in my head is so ridiculous that it literally doesn't register. Note I am not saying you can't do it, or balance around it, I just always forget to consider it when theorycrafting. Given that, the fighting style probably does need some kind of wording to prevent getting a bonus action attack on top of it, though I do think the wording needs to be specific so that commanding a chain pact familiar/battle smith defender/beast master companion/spiritual weapon/summon/wildfire spirit/etc... is still allowed. Each of these options have their own inherent counters/costs so I don't think they should be restricted.

I know from experience that my first take at any homebrew project tends to fall a little on the overpowered side, so the same is likely true of what I posted earlier. Would reducing the scaling AC to a third of proficiency bonus (rounded up) be better? That would let it scale up to the same as a mundane shield around level 9, but never exceed that of a mundane shield.

[Segev]

I admit, I forgot about dual wielding spears/quarterstaves because the image that paints in my head is so ridiculous that it literally doesn't register. Note I am not saying you can't do it, or balance around it, I just always forget to consider it when theorycrafting. Given that, the fighting style probably does need some kind of wording to prevent getting a bonus action attack on top of it, though I do think the wording needs to be specific so that commanding a chain pact familiar/battle smith defender/beast master companion/spiritual weapon/summon/wildfire spirit/etc... is still allowed. Each of these options have their own inherent counters/costs so I don't think they should be restricted.

I know from experience that my first take at any homebrew project tends to fall a little on the overpowered side, so the same is likely true of what I posted earlier. Would reducing the scaling AC to a third of proficiency bonus (rounded up) be better? That would let it scale up to the same as a mundane shield around level 9, but never exceed that of a mundane shield.

It may or may not need the balancing, but I will suggest that PAM should probably read "when attacking with a polearm wielded in two hands...," which would eliminate both quarterstaff-and-shield PAMing and automatically solve any issues that arose from rewriting dual wielding (since you can no longer benefit from PAM when wielding a separate quarterstaff in each hand).

[DM7581]

It may or may not need the balancing, but I will suggest that PAM should probably read "when attacking with a polearm wielded in two hands...," which would eliminate both quarterstaff-and-shield PAMing and automatically solve any issues that arose from rewriting dual wielding (since you can no longer benefit from PAM when wielding a separate quarterstaff in each hand).

Yeah, I agree and that is a much easier houserule to implement and likely what the designers intended anyway.

However... I am in a game playing a spear/shield PAM (dueling style) and well, I'd hate to take that away (I also have a glaive, but whatever).

[DM7581]

Not trying to turn this another "let's fix two-weapon fighting" thread, but we've gone this far. How is this?

Two-Weapon Fighting (rule):
When you take the Attack action to attack with a melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different, light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack, unless that modifier is negative. If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

Allows for rapier/dagger, longsword/short sword (a 2e favorite), without a feat investment. Yes, you also gain a potential +1 DPR. Not broken in my opinion.

Two-Weapon Fighting (fighting style):
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, the second attack can now be made as a part of the same attack action and you can add your ability modifier to the damage.

So a Fighter who action surges simply gets double their attacks like everyone else and bonus actions are now open for other things.

Dual Wielder (feat):
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:

You can use a bonus action to gain a bonus to AC equal to half of your proficiency bonus while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one- handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light and can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
When wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand and are struck by a weapon attack in melee, you can use a reaction to make an attack roll against the attackers roll. If the roll succeeds, the attack instead misses, and if it also meets or exceeds the creature's AC, you can deal damage to it as if you had hit it with a weapon attack.


I like the scaling AC (as a defensive stance), but it should cost something. Also liked the parry/counter reaction. Not sure if this is too wordy or not, but trying to make it as brief and concise as possible, keep it to melee, and add a disclaimer that you can attack them (maybe you opt not to for some reason).

--

And just to round it out...

Polearm Master (feat):
You can keep your enemies at bay with reach weapons. You gain the following benefits:

When you take the Attack action and attack with only a glaive, halberd, quarterstaff, or spear with two hands, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon; this attack uses the same ability modifier as the primary attack. The weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4, and the attack deals bludgeoning damage.
While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff, or spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach.


Okay, so no dual spear/quarterstaff cheese, although you can still use two-weapon fighting with them as normal, if that is your thing.

[Segev]

Not trying to turn this another "let's fix two-weapon fighting" thread, but we've gone this far.

I've taken the liberty of making its own thread for this. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?628106-Another-quot-let-s-fix-Two-Weapon-Fighting-quot-thread)

[DM7581]

Well back on topic, then. TWFing aside, would it be a reasonable ask or houserule to allow for Tasha's beast mechanics, but apply them to the core/PHB beast options?

That is the 1/4 CR or less, medium or smaller beast, but get the same skill and save bonuses as well as improved HP?

Is having that wolf or flying snake being able to attack as a bonus action, and be more viable/survivable too unbalanced?

I am not in favor of the 8 Int and understanding languages, so I'd keep the core beast in that regard. I like the reviving mechanic, but feel iffy on max HP, even if it takes a minute.

Would it be easier to take Tasha's beast of sky/land/water and just sub out abilities?

[Kane0]

Honestly i think it would be easier to take the tashas beasts with alternate features, but either way doesnt change much overall.

[Quietus]

Well back on topic, then. TWFing aside, would it be a reasonable ask or houserule to allow for Tasha's beast mechanics, but apply them to the core/PHB beast options?

That is the 1/4 CR or less, medium or smaller beast, but get the same skill and save bonuses as well as improved HP?

Is having that wolf or flying snake being able to attack as a bonus action, and be more viable/survivable too unbalanced?

I am not in favor of the 8 Int and understanding languages, so I'd keep the core beast in that regard. I like the reviving mechanic, but feel iffy on max HP, even if it takes a minute.

Would it be easier to take Tasha's beast of sky/land/water and just sub out abilities?

Having a suite of abilities that your Tasha's beast could choose from would be nice. Perhaps fold it into the level 7 ability, since it gets gutted by using the bonus action command mechanic? Give the option to swap to other abilities, and then give a suite of abilities you can pick, changeable on a long rest. This way you could even have some stronger abilities gated to high level.

[Lolzyking]

Really the only thing regular beasts need now is the "primal bond" trait the primal beasts get.

[DM7581]

Really the only thing regular beasts need now is the "primal bond" trait the primal beasts get.

I dont think so. I think the Primal Bond trait (a very desirable one), as well as the HP bumb, 8 Int and languages, and the bonus action to attack and sub out attack options are ALL Tasha-exclusive.

So we get all that, but a one-size fits all "charging" land beast or "flyby" air beast and call it a day.

I mean, my intent would be to merge the two and say have a flying snake or giant crab or whatever, with their specific senses, abilities, and flavor, but add in the HP and skill/save bonuses. Oh, and the revival mechanic.

Not crazy about the 8 Int and languages, or the beast magically appearing as a summoned creature (finding it and bonding with it in nature is cooler, even if it is just glossed over during a rest sequence).

[Segev]

(finding it and bonding with it in nature is cooler, even if it is just glossed over during a rest sequence).
I agree. It's why I suggested remaking it more focused on select spells for the Ranger. They get their beast buddy (or buddies) the same way any other ranger or druid could, but then do a bit more with them and don't have to devote all of their spells to doing it (because the archetype gives them the requisite spells).


If the expectation for pets is that they're NPCs, perhaps the key is to lean more into the means of getting NPC assistants, and buffing them.

Beast Master (Revised)
You have a mystical bond with and mastery of beasts.

Beast Master Spells
At certain levels of Ranger, you learn new spells. These spells count as Ranger spells for you, but do not count against your number of Ranger spells known. You can cast any of these spells that are rituals as rituals.

3. animal friendship, beast bond, speak with animals
5. animal messenger, beast sense

Beast Trainer
When you take this archetype at level 3, you gain the ability to command beasts and bring the most out of them. As a bonus action, you may focus your will on a beast that is friendly to you or Charmed by you. Until the start of your next turn, that beast may add your Proficiency bonus to its attack and damage rolls.

When you attain 7th level, the affected beast counts its weapon attacks as magical while it adds your proficiency bonus to its attacks. Once per round when you take the attack action, you may give up one of your attacks to command the affected beast to make an attack of your choice with you selecting the target. You may command the beast to move up to its movement to get into range, but this movement counts against its movement on its next turn.

At 11th level, the chosen beast retains this bonus (and you can direct it each round) for a minute, or until you use a bonus action to grant this bonus to a different eligible beast.

Share Spells
Beginning at 15th level, when you cast a spell targeting yourself, you can also affect one beast of your choice that is friendly to you or Charmed by you, as long as that beast is within 30 feet of you.

I admit that I'm not positive the balance works out, here, but I don't think it's significantly worse than anything a Druid could do.

[Lolzyking]

I dont think so. I think the Primal Bond trait (a very desirable one), as well as the HP bumb, 8 Int and languages, and the bonus action to attack and sub out attack options are ALL Tasha-exclusive.

So we get all that, but a one-size fits all "charging" land beast or "flyby" air beast and call it a day.

I mean, my intent would be to merge the two and say have a flying snake or giant crab or whatever, with their specific senses, abilities, and flavor, but add in the HP and skill/save bonuses. Oh, and the revival mechanic.

Not crazy about the 8 Int and languages, or the beast magically appearing as a summoned creature (finding it and bonding with it in nature is cooler, even if it is just glossed over during a rest sequence).

we are in agreement, I was just saying, in not enough words, that I would prefer to in 99 out 100 times use an actual cr 1/4th or lower beast than any of the bland tasha options.

to be fair and equal I feel an errata to tasha's stating that any beast master companion should gain the "primal bond" ability trait and possibly use the new hp formula. If not it should atleast be an acceptable house rule.