Savage Wombat
Hero
So the next "fix the beastmaster" question is - what about larger pets? Would a feat be sufficient to allow a larger CR animal? Would you get a +1 to a Stat as part of the feat, or is that too powerful?
D&D 5E Beastmaster's animal companion: can it survive for 2 rounds?
Evenglare
Adventurer
This is a very interesting question. I wouldn't give the +1 stat to the feat I don't think. But I think as powerful as feats are that giving you a +1 additional CR would be pretty good. I'd allow it at this point.
SilverfireSage
Explorer
My thoughts are twofold: One, 99% of the time in a group of 4, a monster is not going to even think about attacking the companion. It's going to attack the massive fighter/barbarian/paladin, or attack the ranger himself. All seem like worse foes than a lowly wolf or panther.
Second, the companion is far, far better than people are making it out to be. I have someone who is translating a pathfinder ranger to 5E (since my group is all switching over) and after playing around with the math, the Ranger+Animal companion actually is tougher and deals more damage at a more consistent rate than a fighter of the same level.
He's level 11 right now, so we'll use that for the example. At that level, on the average hit the fighter is going to be doing around 1d10+6 (5 for strength, 1 for magic) each attack for three attacks at a +10 bonus. Fighting against a creature with an 20 armor class that's about 16-17 damage a round rolling perfectly average. Contrast that to a wolf, who has a +8 to hit, two attacks that deal 2d4 + 6 damage each and can knock prone. Seems pretty bad until you notice pack tactics, where the wolf gets advantage whenever he's near someone. If that someone is the ranger, he now has the equivalent of a +5 to his attacks, meaning that he gets a +13 to hit, and deals around 15 damage alone. Then you add in the ranger's damage which should be somewhere near the Fighter's, and you're dealing as much damage as the fighter, while also providing a sneak attack opportunity for a rogue and a buffer of 44 hit points for the casters. Not to mention that at that level the Wolf has an exceptional 17 AC (which could easily be boosted to 20+ if any sort of barding is made), and the wolf/ranger combo doesn't seem so bad in my eyes.
Second, the companion is far, far better than people are making it out to be. I have someone who is translating a pathfinder ranger to 5E (since my group is all switching over) and after playing around with the math, the Ranger+Animal companion actually is tougher and deals more damage at a more consistent rate than a fighter of the same level.
He's level 11 right now, so we'll use that for the example. At that level, on the average hit the fighter is going to be doing around 1d10+6 (5 for strength, 1 for magic) each attack for three attacks at a +10 bonus. Fighting against a creature with an 20 armor class that's about 16-17 damage a round rolling perfectly average. Contrast that to a wolf, who has a +8 to hit, two attacks that deal 2d4 + 6 damage each and can knock prone. Seems pretty bad until you notice pack tactics, where the wolf gets advantage whenever he's near someone. If that someone is the ranger, he now has the equivalent of a +5 to his attacks, meaning that he gets a +13 to hit, and deals around 15 damage alone. Then you add in the ranger's damage which should be somewhere near the Fighter's, and you're dealing as much damage as the fighter, while also providing a sneak attack opportunity for a rogue and a buffer of 44 hit points for the casters. Not to mention that at that level the Wolf has an exceptional 17 AC (which could easily be boosted to 20+ if any sort of barding is made), and the wolf/ranger combo doesn't seem so bad in my eyes.
Mouseferatu
Hero
So, I've been thinking a lot about this. I haven't actually run numbers, but in terms of general concept...
I don't think it's viable to compare the ACo to summoned/conjured monsters. We're talking about something that's constant vs. a spell; a one-combat (for the most part) effect. It's like comparing a fighter's sword to a spiritual weapon.
In pure gamist terms, the animal companion is a floating action. It's an attack, or an aid. The other things it can do--dash, dodge, move--are in service to the attack/aid concepts, so you can get it where it's supposed to be.
It does seem weird for it to take your action to command the thing. It breaks verisimilitude; but it's not mechanically weaker than just taking an attack. It's just also not substantially stronger.
But I understand the sense that the ACo should add more than just an option. No matter how balanced it may be, it feels wrong to have a companion that doesn't let you do at least a little more in one turn than you otherwise could.
You know what else gives you an extra attack without taking your action? Two-weapon fighting. So what about this: "On any turn when you spend your action, or part of your action, commanding your companion, you may spend your bonus action to make an attack with one weapon you are wielding. This attack does not add your ability modifier to damage."
Boom. You're now getting your full number of attacks--one if you don't yet have the extra attack feature, two if you do--plus your companion's attack.* It's just that one of those attacks costs your bonus action and isn't quite as strong--exactly as TWF. You can justify it as being the attack you made while also directing your ACo, so it didn't have have your full attention behind it.
*(Unless, of course, you were already a TWF ranger, in which case you're missing out on your "normal" off-hand attack. But not everything can be accounted for.
And it would be easy to add "If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting style, you do add your ability modifier to the damage," so at least you're not losing that. I suppose the rule could be phrased to allow TWF rangers to take two attacks with one bonus action, like the monk's flurry, but that'd have to be very carefully phrases/balanced, and only one of the two would get the ability modifier.)
Do the numbers work out exactly? No; you're likely to be wielding a weapon that deals more damage than a light weapon. But given that the other ranger subclass is getting damage-increasing options, too, I think it at least might work out. (As I said, I haven't run the numbers.) And it's a lot simpler than rewriting the entire companion feature.
I don't think it's viable to compare the ACo to summoned/conjured monsters. We're talking about something that's constant vs. a spell; a one-combat (for the most part) effect. It's like comparing a fighter's sword to a spiritual weapon.
In pure gamist terms, the animal companion is a floating action. It's an attack, or an aid. The other things it can do--dash, dodge, move--are in service to the attack/aid concepts, so you can get it where it's supposed to be.
It does seem weird for it to take your action to command the thing. It breaks verisimilitude; but it's not mechanically weaker than just taking an attack. It's just also not substantially stronger.
But I understand the sense that the ACo should add more than just an option. No matter how balanced it may be, it feels wrong to have a companion that doesn't let you do at least a little more in one turn than you otherwise could.
You know what else gives you an extra attack without taking your action? Two-weapon fighting. So what about this: "On any turn when you spend your action, or part of your action, commanding your companion, you may spend your bonus action to make an attack with one weapon you are wielding. This attack does not add your ability modifier to damage."
Boom. You're now getting your full number of attacks--one if you don't yet have the extra attack feature, two if you do--plus your companion's attack.* It's just that one of those attacks costs your bonus action and isn't quite as strong--exactly as TWF. You can justify it as being the attack you made while also directing your ACo, so it didn't have have your full attention behind it.
*(Unless, of course, you were already a TWF ranger, in which case you're missing out on your "normal" off-hand attack. But not everything can be accounted for.
And it would be easy to add "If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting style, you do add your ability modifier to the damage," so at least you're not losing that. I suppose the rule could be phrased to allow TWF rangers to take two attacks with one bonus action, like the monk's flurry, but that'd have to be very carefully phrases/balanced, and only one of the two would get the ability modifier.)Do the numbers work out exactly? No; you're likely to be wielding a weapon that deals more damage than a light weapon. But given that the other ranger subclass is getting damage-increasing options, too, I think it at least might work out. (As I said, I haven't run the numbers.) And it's a lot simpler than rewriting the entire companion feature.
Last edited:
Mouseferatu
Hero
Oh, I realize the above only solves the problem for attacking, not spellcasting or dashing or whatnot. I know it's not perfect. I think of it as a starting point.
I considered trying to balance the idea of a TWF-equivalent making the ACo's attack the bonus, but--given that the animal's attack doesn't likely include as high an ability bonus as the ranger's, and that you also can't make an off-hand attack in a round where you don't use the attack action (so no spellcasting)--it didn't seem to balance out.
I considered trying to balance the idea of a TWF-equivalent making the ACo's attack the bonus, but--given that the animal's attack doesn't likely include as high an ability bonus as the ranger's, and that you also can't make an off-hand attack in a round where you don't use the attack action (so no spellcasting)--it didn't seem to balance out.
dd.stevenson
Super KY
I really like that approach, though.
"Go For The Eyes As a bonus action while making a one-handed weapon attack, you may use your empty, free hand to urge your companion into a single attack. Resolve this attack as if you were attacking with a second strength or dexterity weapon (your choice) having a base damage equal to your companion's hit die size."
Needs some work, but I think (?) it's in the right ballpark.
Last edited:
Mouseferatu
Hero
See, if I was rebuilding the companion feature from the ground up, I'd do something very much like that. Have it deal damage based on the needs/level of the ranger (like in 4e), rather than based on what the same critter in the MM did. I like it, in theory.
But I'm trying to find a way that avoids wholesale rewriting.
I'm trying to just balance it, more or less as-is, with the hunter ranger, or thereabouts; and since I do want to keep it more or less as-is, I'm reluctant to change the ACo's damage from RAW.Having an ACo make an attack has more versatility than Hunter's Prey options, so it should do less--or at least no more--damage. The HP options are all (on average) based around d8s. One of them specifies d8, the others are weapon-based, so d8--the best one-handed martial weapon--is a good baseline. It's hard to balance that against the ACo's attack, since they vary so widely (and since some have riders, like the wolf's trip attack). But it's easy to balance against the ranger's own weapon attack.
Where it runs into problems is where balance smacks up against verisimilitude. Mechanically, it makes sense the ACo can't attack if the ranger casts a spell, dashes, or does anything other than attack. After all, the hunter only gets most of his bonuses if he attacks, and neither he nor the TWFer can make an off-hand attack if they aren't taking the attack action.
But in terms of verisimilitude, why can't Fido bite while you cast a spell, if he can bite while you attack someone other than who he's attacking?
I'm still working on reconciling that.
Juriel
First Post
People trying to follow the rules of the game..? Should we not trust anything the book says? Wizard spell slots per day are just suggestions, I should query my DM before every session whether a spell uses a slot, just because the game says it does? Perhaps I don't stop acting at 0hp, either, I should start to argue the point every time it comes up?
Mearls is certainly trying to hide behind 'DM can fix it!' for writing rules badly, but that's something that should've been caught when designing and editing the bloody thing. Guess their timeline caught up to them, they just pushed it out, and are now pretending it's all part of some liberating plan, when it's just confusing.
Juriel
First Post
Wth Mearls's tweet, the animal companion is now a free extra set of actions, then. Better than a bought mastiff, because it gets more HP, and proficiency bonus to some things. Makes the whole option of 'spend your attack to give the beast a command' pointless until you get 2 x beast attacks out of it, but that's what quick-fixing after the fact gets you.
And just to reiterate, animal HP doesn't matter because it comes from the 4 x ranger level part, and AC doesn't matter because it comes from barding, so just decide whether the role for the animal is facilitating your party melee attacks (knockdown, frog restrain) or doing straight damage (poison, multiattacks), and then... I guess forget about it? Ask your DM if you can just run it so he doesn't have to make the judgement calls that I mentioned before, every single turn.
And just to reiterate, animal HP doesn't matter because it comes from the 4 x ranger level part, and AC doesn't matter because it comes from barding, so just decide whether the role for the animal is facilitating your party melee attacks (knockdown, frog restrain) or doing straight damage (poison, multiattacks), and then... I guess forget about it? Ask your DM if you can just run it so he doesn't have to make the judgement calls that I mentioned before, every single turn.
Last edited:
dd.stevenson
Super KY
Yeah, I understand what you're doing. But I lack your self-control
Similar Threads
