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

[Runny]

Looks like my interpretation jives with Mearls'. The DM has the ACo dodging vs scary foes and possibly attacking weaker ones (that seems like how a wolf would fight). Maybe he mixes it up and helps the ranger sometimes.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Looks like my interpretation jives with Mearls'. The DM has the ACo dodging vs scary foes and possibly attacking weaker ones (that seems like how a wolf would fight). Maybe he mixes it up and helps the ranger sometimes.

Which, sadly, just lends weight to the "Why take an animal companion when you can just buy a dog for 25 gp?" crowd, since that's the same outcome.

A archetypal class feature should provide a bit more IMO than a mechanic any other character can easily access. Insufficient playtesting of this feature is my guess.

Right now, I'm thinking an easy fix might be to change the mechanic to read: "You gain a bonus action to direct your animal companion to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help action. On a turn where you do not direct your companion, it continues to perform the last command given until that is no longer possible, at which time it takes the Dodge action until directed otherwise." I think that preserves the action economy while making the companion a bit more useful than just another trained animal, and makes it more defensive. Of course, now the 7th level expansion needs tweaking since RAW we just usurped that ... perhaps the 7th level fix is "On any turn when you and your companion use the Attack action against the same opponent, you each gain advantage on your first attack."

Edit: After comparing to other options like TWF, spiritual weapon and paladin. fighter, and rogue class abilities, I've come to the conclusion that this would be balanced even allowing the attack as a bonus action at 3rd level. Text above is edited to reflect that.

 

[machineelf]

With the Help action you're correct, but if you tell your ACo to Help, you sacrifice your own action, so you only get an attack off every-other round by directing your ACo to help you.

I'm saying you should be able to direct the ACo to Help when you have a single attack, or when you get the Extra Attack and you and your ACo split the attacks, you should gain the benefit of advantage when you both attack the same target -- sort of like flanking for a sneak attack, but not as powerful.

I think we are mostly on the same page then, if you read the rest of my comment. I want the ACo to be given verbal commands by the Ranger that doesn't cost the Ranger an action, and I want the ACo to take actions on its own that would be normal reactions to situations (i.e., defending itself against an attacker; continuing to obey its last command from the ranger without having to be retold every round; etc.)

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I think we are mostly on the same page then, if you read the rest of my comment.

Agreed -- see my post just above your last for how I'd propose to implement the idea.

 

[JoeCrow]

Right now, I'm thinking an easy fix might be to change the mechanic to read: "You gain a bonus action to direct your animal companion to take the Disengage, Dodge, or Help action. You may use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack or Dash action. On a turn where you do not direct your companion, it continues to perform the last command given until that is no longer possible, at which time it takes the Dodge action until directed otherwise." I think that preserves the action economy while making the companion a bit more useful than just another trained animal, and makes it more defensive. Of course, now the 7th level expansion needs tweaking since RAW it just gives Dash as a bonus ... perhaps the 7th level fix is "On any turn when you and your companion use the Attack action against the same opponent, you each gain advantage on your first attack."

That actually seems like the smoothest solution to the problem. Think it's the one I'll use until something official comes up (or maybe even after, if the official solution sucks). My daughter's been thinking about running a critter-focused ranger for our upcoming family game, and I've been looking for a patch for this particular hole.

 

[The Hitcher]

My conversation with Mearls continued. Here's the entire thing:
[MENTION=32417]MikeM[/MENTION]earls If a companion is un-commanded by the Ranger, would you rule that the DM can take control of them and do whatever's logical?
&#8207 [MENTION=38485]unknown[/MENTION]savage yes [MENTION=32417]MikeM[/MENTION]earls Cheers! The RAW seems to say that they won't do a thing if not commanded. [MENTION=32417]MikeM[/MENTION]earls And so can't defend themselves. People are getting their knickers in a knot about it. [MENTION=38485]unknown[/MENTION]savage DM trumps RAW - RAW is meaningless without DM adjudication [MENTION=32417]MikeM[/MENTION]earls Yeah, totally. Some people don't cope very well with that concept, though. [MENTION=38485]unknown[/MENTION]savage it's definitely a return to D&D's roots. OTOH, we can't use it as a crutch for sloppiness. Big reason for annual surveys. [MENTION=32417]MikeM[/MENTION]earls For sure. Consistency between rules for mounts and rules for companions would make sense.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Another balance comparison that just occurred to me: compare the animal companion to the 2d level cleric spell spiritual weapon which is gained at the same level. While the animal companion has out-of-combat uses, in combat spiritual weapon grants additional move/attack for the weapon as a bonus action, whereas the ranger shares the Attack action with the companion. The spiritual weapon can be dispelled, but doesn't have an AC and hit points. Both scale with level -- the spiritual weapon more so.

This might suggest that having the companion provide an additional attack as a bonus action doesn't imperil the action economy much.

 

[Evenglare]

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?

 

[Gargoyle]

Which, sadly, just lends weight to the "Why take an animal companion when you can just buy a dog for 25 gp?" crowd, since that's the same outcome.

A archetypal class feature should provide a bit more IMO than a mechanic any other character can easily access. Insufficient playtesting of this feature is my guess.

The whole "buy a mastiff and train it to fight" thing is an interesting argument. Forget that the beast master is in the game at all for a minute. Would you let a player buy a mastiff and train it to fight? Maybe; I could see it if it fit their character concept and they wanted to spend the gold and downtime, but you'd be in your rights to say no. IMO the mastiff is there as a mount option for small characters. I'd treat a non-mount animal used for combat like a henchmen, which typically get a half share of XP. It's still annoying that such a creature might be more useful than the beast master's animal companion. So I'm not saying there is no issue here, I just that I think it's a bit less of a problem than people are making it into. I've never once heard of this problem of people training pets in earlier editions and ruining the action economy, and I don't see anything in the new RAW that makes it easier, so I guess I'm confused as to why this is a thing now, other than people don't like for their beast masters to have to spend actions (which I get, given the changes to the ranger, and as mentioned, lack of synergy).

Now the deal with the spells like conjure elemental, that bothers me more, even if it requires concentration and a spell slot...economy of action is destroyed by those and I'm not sure how that got through even internal playtesting since speed of play was a primary design goal. Getting an army of elementals or undead to fight is not overpowered IMO, but it's annoying to wait on that player to take his turn.

 

[machineelf]

Getting an army of elementals or undead to fight is not overpowered IMO, but it's annoying to wait on that player to take his turn.

I agree with the frustration of waiting for players who have multiple controlled pets. However, I don't see a way around it unless you want to eliminate necromancer and conjuration mages, or other classes with multiple pets. On the positive side, I still think 5e runs faster even with multiple pets than previous editions, especially if players can get used to making decisions faster. Heck, as the DM I run multiple monsters at a time, and my round typically goes faster than many of my players' rounds. If I can do it, then I know they can, too.