This defeats the purpose: lifting any beast up the player's level so that it can fight on the player's behalf. Do you think a 20th level player could adventure with anything less than a 20 HD beast without it dying?
Animal Handling is that mechanism.Then add in a mechanism to make a beast loyal to you
The wolf in my Bestiary has 3 HD.Curious why a wolf isn't an acceptable pet? It is 2 HD.
I want every beast to be lifted up to the player's level, so that every beast is viable, and so that players have no incentive to abandon their animal friends for stronger animal.I'd grant it extra HD, up to your proficiency bonus.
For example, if you are a 10th level player, you should always get at least a 10 HD companion. A 1 HD mastiff and a 5 HD polar bear (using the Monster Manual) should both be lifted up to 10 HD.
With your suggestion, the mastiff is bumped to 5 HD and the bear to 9 HD by your +4 proficiency bonus. This puts the player in a position to think "this mastiff can't keep up. I'm getting rid of her and training a bear".
I have two problems with this.Here, I'd be tempted to just grant your proficiency bonus to its attack rolls, AC and saving throws.
One is that it makes the beast stronger even if it's already stronger than you. I'll say again that the goal is to raise the beast to your level, rather than indiscriminately raising beasts above THEIR level.
The other is that this would make many Bestiary beasts overpowered. Brown bears (for example) potentially go from +10 to hit to +16, and from dealing 14 (2d6 + 7) damage with each of their three attacks to 20 (2d6 + 13). And this is before potential Divine Smite, Fighting Style, Hunter's Mark, or Rage bonuses.
Even if the beast's per-attack damage is worse than yours, you gain a second pool of hit points to tank damage, and the power to cover more space on the battlefield. Add the Bestiary and now you have many beasts with equal or higher damage per attack than the average PC, or special abilities the PC lacks.This is a ribbon, unless you cheese it, honestly. A random beast's per-attack damage is going to be worse than a PCs. [...] A system that doesn't require cheese (a narrow specific choice) to not-suck would be better.
Sure. I'll update the phrasing to reflect that. But you get the point, right? "You can give up your attacks and ask your beast to make them instead, but only up to the number of attacks it could make as an action)Second, most beasts don't make the Attack action; they make the multiattack action.
Well, no. If you can only make one attack with the Attack action and you "give up that attack and tell your beast to make it instead", you're simply not taking the Attack action. You're just telling your beast to use ITS OWN Attack/Multiattack action. Anyone with a companion can do that.Third, 2 or more seems like a strange restriction here.
But if you can make 2 or more attacks with the attack action and you give up some of them and tell your beast to make them instead, THEN you are doing something no one else can do: splitting your action between you and your beast.
Agreed! I'd love to fix thatBeast-Bonded is pretty expensive for a feat. And you get a worse scout than picking up "summon familiar" through one of many methods.
For magical beast bonds there's... well, Beast Bond and Beast Sense. I want to completely avoid magic with these rules. These rules are meant to represent what someone can accomplish just by being good with animals.For Beast-Bonded I might go with turning your Beast into a spirit animal companion. That you can recreate if it is hurt, gains intelligence, etc.
Oh but that problem is GOOD! The death of your beast SHOULD be serious! Or as serious as any other death, anyway! Your companion or mount isn't just a feature or a disposable resource. It's a creature! It might even be your friend! It's closer to a party member than it is to a spell slot.It both provides a more meaty package and can make "oh no my beast died" less of a problem (there is still "oh no my beast got hurt").