D&D 5E Beastmaster's animal companion: can it survive for 2 rounds?

Mouseferatu said:

Yeah, that's the sort of thing I meant earlier, when I said if I was rewriting the subclass from the ground up, I'd design the beast companion based on the needs of the class, rather than trying to match up with critters in the Monster Manual. I'd still really like to find a solution that doesn't require that, though; hence my being so finicky with this discussion.

Click to expand...

Well, then, here's a different idea:

Keep the beast attack as written at 3rd level, where it is a substitute for your attack.

Add in, at, at 3rd level: "As a bonus action, you may direct your beast to take the Disengage or Dodge action. As a bonus action, you may also direct your beast to take the Distract action. With the Distract action, your beast works to distract an opponent within five feet of it, allowing you to make a bonus melee or ranged attack against that opponent with advantage."

That way no matter the fighting style, you get a bonus attack initiated by your beast. The addition of advantage gives everyone, including the TWFer, something they wouldn't have without the beast.

At 7th level: "As a bonus action, you may direct your beast to take the Attack, Dash, or Help action." Now the beast can attack separately, using your bonus action, but without the ranger having to sacrifice an Attack to do so. This isn't quite as good as the 3rd level action, unless the beast's attack is better than your own, or in a situation where having the beast attack is more advantageous.

Evenglare said:

So what I was arguing several pages back is pretty much exactly what mike mearls said. Well im happy I was on the right track. I'm STILL waiting to hear from people that would actually let the companion just sit there. I want to know where these people are who would actually do this. Are their names intel and AMD possibly?

Click to expand...

Their names are 'every DM I've met running Adventurer's League games', who MUST (for table-to-table consistency) go by very narrow RAW & not whatever interpretation they might personally favor.

Snapdragyn said:

Their names are 'every DM I've met running Adventurer's League games', who MUST (for table-to-table consistency) go by very narrow RAW & not whatever interpretation they might personally favor.

Click to expand...

Sure, I'll bite. I'm an Adventurer's League DM, and I probably will start with RAW if I get a beastmaster ranger at my table. If the player asks why their animal companion is doing nothing while being attacked, I'd describe the animal as focusing on defending itself per the special bond/training with the ranger. Where do you think the +2 (or greater) AC bonus and the 4 hp per ranger level are coming from? Similarly, it makes a significant attack when the ranger devotes his or her action to waiting for just the right moment for the animal to make its attack, with its +2 (or greater) bonus to the attack and damage rolls. Otherwise, the animal companion is snarling at its foes, making feints, etc., the same way any other PC is swinging his or her sword more than once every six seconds.

But per the exhortation at the beginning of every Expeditions adventure, I'd make whatever changes seemed necessary to foster fun at the table. If the ranger's player isn't getting his or her chances to shine, I'd probably start letting the animal companion do more. That could include letting it continue attacking whomever it attacked the previous round, although the details may depend on whether I trust the player to resolve his or her turn efficiently.

Pseudopsyche said:

Sure, I'll bite. I'm an Adventurer's League DM, and I probably will start with RAW if I get a beastmaster ranger at my table. If the player asks why their animal companion is doing nothing while being attacked, I'd describe the animal as focusing on defending itself per the special bond/training with the ranger. Where do you think the +2 (or greater) AC bonus and the 4 hp per ranger level are coming from? Similarly, it makes a significant attack when the ranger devotes his or her action to waiting for just the right moment for the animal to make its attack, with its +2 (or greater) bonus to the attack and damage rolls. Otherwise, the animal companion is snarling at its foes, making feints, etc., the same way any other PC is swinging his or her sword more than once every six seconds.

But per the exhortation at the beginning of every Expeditions adventure, I'd make whatever changes seemed necessary to foster fun at the table. If the ranger's player isn't getting his or her chances to shine, I'd probably start letting the animal companion do more. That could include letting it continue attacking whomever it attacked the previous round, although the details may depend on whether I trust the player to resolve his or her turn efficiently.

Click to expand...

But you have permission from on high, the Mearls hath spoken "thou mayest use common sense and logic instead of RAW. The animal shall defendeth itself."

The ranger will not be pissed he missed his chance to shine. He'll be pissed his companion died in round 2 because he stood there helpless (reskinned as feinting and snarling, but by mechanics stood there helpless). The necessity of making those changes for the fun of the table is round 1 of the first encounter, or the player will end up being upset when his pet dies.

But I'd really like WotC to fix this thing officially by RAW. The animal should be able to continue its last orders or just automatically take the Dodge Action or attack an enemy that attacked it if undirected in combat. At the very least, have Mearls' statement of "use common sense with animal companions" be something that the Adventurer's League directions say for GMs to do.

This wouldn't have been an issue if this option were available in the public playtest because players would have screamed "Bloody Murder!" to the rooftops over it, and it would have been revised to be a viable option. Now what I'm afraid of is that this is such an unattractive option that not enough people will play it in league play for it to make an issue of it. One might hope that that fact alone could induce them to make a fix. There will always be that player who builds a character with all 12s and makes sub-optimal choices to prove what a "real role-player" they are, but this class should be viable to people who want a very effective martial character.

epochrpg said:

The ranger will not be pissed he missed his chance to shine. He'll be pissed his companion died in round 2 because he stood there helpless (reskinned as feinting and snarling, but by mechanics stood there helpless). The necessity of making those changes for the fun of the table is round 1 of the first encounter, or the player will end up being upset when his pet dies.

Click to expand...

I ran many 4E sessions for Living Forgotten Realms, including many PCs with pets operating on the no-attacks-without-PC-action design. I never had any complaints about verisimilitude, but then again I never had the monsters all focus fire on the wolf in the room, ignoring the raging barbarian, spell-slinging wizard, and glowing-with-divine-power cleric. Your mileage may vary.

In practice, I generally only attacked pets when it made narrative sense. For example, the orc defending itself against the druid's bear that attacked it. Usually attacking pets works to the PCs' advantage anyway, since it means I'm not attacking the party. Most often pets were used to provide tactical support: helping the rogue get sneak attack, cutting off an enemy's escape route, etc. I don't see any reason they can't fill the same useful role in 5E.

Just chirping in here as I saw someone mention increasing the CR of beasts available.
Compared with a Druids wildshape (one of the main features of that class) that adds many restrictions and does not add proffeciency bonuses to the animal they become...the rangers beast is actually not that bad as considering it only a subclass feature.
It think it be would be a bit disappointing for the Druid player to be outclasses by an animal companion, so before adding too much to the ACo via homebrews just remember that the fact prof bonus is added at all is a huge benefit in itself.

FYI I asked Jeremy Crawford about ranger's beast companion OA on twitter;

@Plaguescarred Can a ranger's beast companion take reaction and make opportunity attack? -
@JeremyECrawford I would rule that the beast can make an opportunity attack.

Tigerlil said:

It think it be would be a bit disappointing for the Druid player to be outclasses by an animal companion, so before adding too much to the ACo via homebrews just remember that the fact prof bonus is added at all is a huge benefit in itself.

Click to expand...

Err, how about, it's not? Moon Druid is shifting into a CR1 Giant Hyena at lv2, before the Ranger even gets his companion, and even if Rangers can keep upgrading their pet CR (an IMO tortured reading of the rules), the difference-maker is that your FULL CASTER doesn't even need healing, they can just shift again, twice every short rest.

By the rules, the Ranger is stuck with a CR 1/4 pet that cannot heal itself, or act by itself, so any and all houserules ARE needed. Getting a few point proficiency bonus to some rolls (not even all the rolls) is meaningless.

Circle of the moon is a subclass that you can take on top of regular shapeshifting, so it carries the extra subclass cost.
Read the first line of my post before ranting though:
"I saw someone mentioning increasing the CR of beasts available"
so please beware before you homebrew the ACo better.

sorry if this warning in some way offended you.

Tigerlil said:

Circle of the moon is a subclass that you can take on top of regular shapeshifting, so it carries the extra subclass cost.

Click to expand...

Oh, ONLY comparing to regular Widlshape? Then it's even more preposterous, why should a Druid's base class feature (thrown in just for flavor, as you could do the same thing through the FULL CASTER mega-feature) be stronger than someone else's subclass selection?