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

[Gargoyle]

I'm a fan (as suggested on a prior page) of giving the ranger and beast advantage on their attacks for attacking the same target. It accomplishes a similar result of giving more damage, but in a different way -- by increasing probability of hit rather than just adding damage outright.

Though I'm not sure on the math, I very much like this approach if the goal is to increase power outright. Doing it in a way that makes the ranger and companion feel like they are being rewarded for teamwork appeals to me more than just effectively increasing the number of attacks; the latter feels like it steps on the fighter's toes a bit. But I'm not going to increase damage per round yet. Going to wait and see if the tactical options in the DMG make the animal companion more appealing as is. If there are options like bonuses for flanking etc, and I like them, it may change the efficacy of the animal companion significantly as written. Good discussion though, I appreciate everyone's input as it's been educational for me.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Though I'm not sure on the math, I very much like this approach if the goal is to increase power outright. Doing it in a way that makes the ranger and companion feel like they are being rewarded for teamwork appeals to me more than just effectively increasing the number of attacks; the latter feels like it steps on the fighter's toes a bit.

That's why I like it; I think it accomplishes the intended flavor of the archetype while simultaneously providing some mechanical balance against alternative classes or class features, and staying unique -- it didn't just borrow a sneak attack mechanic or superiority dice mechanic or whatever. More tweaks to the higher level class abilities that focus on the teamwork of ranger and beast would be an improvement IMO.

This is one thing that some of the 4E class variants did very well, I think -- have powers that tied very closely to the archetype while still remaining mechanically viable and distinct. It's sad that the beastmaster ranger lost it in translation but I don't think it's that hard to restore.

 

[giggles]

. unknownsavage DM trumps RAW - RAW is meaningless without DM adjudication MikeMearls Yeah, totally. Some people don't cope very well with that concept, though. .

Yeah, some people just can't handle the idea that we don't need to get the game designers' permission to play the way we want to pl--waitaminnit...

 

[Mouseferatu]

If the beast's attack becomes a bonus action at 5th, the beastmaster can keep the extra attack and it remains balanced. As you've proposed it, a TWF hunter gets 3 attacks at 5th due to the TWF bonus action, but the beastmaster only gets two with the same number of actions (the kludge you suggest below to allow a TWF an off-hand attack with the bonus action as well breaks for two reasons: it only works for TWF, penalizing other combat styles, and it's now effectively two bonus actions). As I propose it, at 5th a TWF ranger gets 3 attacks, and a beastmaster ranger gets 3 attacks (regardless of fighting style), each using the same bonus action. If the beastmaster is using the TWF fighting style, he can use only one bonus action -- either a beast attack or off-hand attack -- so he keeps three attacks either way.

Your suggestion reduces the beastmaster's effectiveness compared to alternatives, rather than restoring balance. Frankly, given that TWF Fighting Style provides a full second attack at 2d level, waiting to give the beast's attack via a bonus action at 5th is probably a bit unfair; providing it at 3rd with the Ranger Archetype isn't unbalanced.

Two problems here.

1) The ACo attack is better than the TWF off-hand attack. It (potentially, depending on beast) does more damage and has other effects. The ranger can raise his TWF damage, but that's at the cost of a feat.

2) It makes choosing TWF an inferior option. All other fighting styles now provide a bonus in addition to being a beastmaster, while TWF does not. The ranger can still get his +2 to archery, or whatever.

Yes, the TWF option I proposed is a bit of a kludge, and I'd love to hear alternate suggestions, but I still think it's the best option thus far, in terms of balance.

 

[variant]

Anyone run the DPR numbers of the beastmaster? Compared to the hunter, I just don't see it putting out near the same DPR. The hunter deals an additional d8 every turn and is very effective at AOE. It can also cause another creatures to attack its ally which if the creature the ranger is fighting has a high damage, that DPR should spike.

We simply need to know how much DPR it will increase for the beastmaster compared to the hunter if we just let the ranger control the animal companion without using up a bonus action and then if it uses it with using a bonus action.

Right now the beastmaster is already at a disadvantage with the hunter. He loses a huge amount of his DPR if his animal companion drops and loses his extra attack to make the animal companion attack.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Two problems here.

1) The ACo attack is better than the TWF off-hand attack. It (potentially, depending on beast) does more damage and has other effects. The ranger can raise his TWF damage, but that's at the cost of a feat.

Not quite, and when it is superior, it isn't as often as you think:

- TWF gets the damage boost for the Fighting Style, not taking a feat. It's free, and worth up to +5 per attack due to off-hand bonus. Figure +3 at 2d assuming a 16 starting stat, which will almost certainly be 20 at 8th level with two Ability Improvements. So you have gain a (+5 to hit) 1d6+3 (6) off-hand attack as a bonus action at 2d level, which rises to (+8 to hit) 1d6+5 (8) at 8th, plus potentially boosted by +1d8 (4) once per turn with Colossus Slayer starting at 3rd level. (All .5 damage rounded down for simplicity.)

- Versus the beast attack, which gets the proficiency bonus to attack and defense. Picking a few likely choices from the PHB:

Boar: 3rd (+5 to hit, 1d6+3 (6) damage) to 8th (+6 to hit, 1d6+4 (7) damage), can do extra 3 damage on a charge. Call it equal.

Mastiff: 3rd (+5 to hit, 1d6+3 (6) damage) to 8th (+6 to hit, 1d6+4 (7) damage), DC 11 to knock prone. I'd call this slightly inferior at all levels.

Panther: 3rd (+6 to hit, 1d6+4 (7) damage) to 8th (+7 to hit, 1d6+5 (8) damage). Can knock prone on a pounce (DC 12). This is slightly better than TWF at 3rd level but slightly worse at 8th.

Poisonous Snake: 3rd: +7 to hit (8th +8 to hit), 3 (8th: 4) damage plus either 2d4 (5) on a failed DC10 save or 2d4/2 (2) on a successful save -- average 6 at 3rd and 7 at 8th given a 50/50 save . That's better accuracy at 3rd but equal or inferior in damage, plus its dependent on a fairly easy save.

Wolf: 3rd (+6 to hit, 2d4+4 (9) damage) to 8th (+7 to hit, 2d4+5 (10) damage), advantage if attacking with an ally, trip on DC11 STR failure. This is the superior companion choice of the PHB options -- but I'd argue not absolutely superior give the other tradeoffs between fighting style and companions.

... And of course the TWF off-hand attack can't be killed, immobilized, held, charmed, or any of the other things an animal companion is exposed to -- at 3rd level, the best choice above is AC 15 with 12 hp, rising to AC 16 with 32 hp at 8th level. The Hunter doesn't have to worry about defending his class ability, though the Beastmaster gains a distraction and additional hp sink, for a little while.

Overall, I think that makes a TWF bonus attack equal or slightly better than a beast attack under most conditions -- which then swings clearly in favor of TWF if Colossus Slayer or the use of large weapons via the Dual Wielder feat come into play -- but only if the beastmaster is getting the beast attack as a bonus action, not as an either-or as written now.

2) It makes choosing TWF an inferior option. All other fighting styles now provide a bonus in addition to being a beastmaster, while TWF does not. The ranger can still get his +2 to archery, or whatever.

Not really; it makes it still a reasonable choice. Consider:

- The archery +2 to hit only applies to archery attacks; it doesn't apply for beast attacks. It doesn't grant an extra attack.
- Duelist +2 to damage doesn't apply to beast attacks; it doesn't grant an extra attack.
- Defense (+1 AC) is the only choice that applies all the time, but it doesn't affect attacks. TWF can match it by taking the Dual Wielder feat later on (also gaining the ability to dual-wield 1d8 weapons instead of just 1d6, which bumps all of the comparisons above by a point of damage in favor of TWF).

Frankly, in terms of offensive ability, the three styles above are basically inferior to TWF as far as the ranger is concerned since only TWF enables a fully capable additional attack. The beastmaster who takes TWF only makes the tradeoff when the beast attacks and retains full attack otherwise; a non-TWF style gains an attack to equal the TWF'er beastmaster ... and is still likely a bit behind a ranger with the same or TWF fighting style who takes the Hunter approach and Colossus Slayer ability.

Yes, the TWF option I proposed is a bit of a kludge, and I'd love to hear alternate suggestions, but I still think it's the best option thus far, in terms of balance.

My nomination is this:

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."

At 7th level: "On any turn when you and your companion use attack the same opponent, you each gain advantage on your first attack."

It doesn't make the choices equal, but makes them close enough to be equivalent that there's a more reasonable choice between the two than there is now.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The "damage boost" I was talking about was actually the bump up to a d8 weapon, with the feat. But that's my bad; I wasn't clear.

Sure, archery and duelist don't apply to beast attacks, but they do apply to attacks the ranger makes in the same turn as a beast attack, where a TWF ranger gains nothing during those turns.

Also, it's true an extra attack can't be held/charmed/whatever, but any such attack that targets the beast isn't targeting someone else. Perhaps not a huge benefit, but worth considering.

All that said, you may be right. My numbers, which were very general "quick eyeball" estimates, may well be off. I'm really leery of a possible trip as a bonus action every round, but that may be a problem with the wolf, specifically, rather than the proposed changes to the beastmaster.

I really wish I had the chance to see both ranger types in action at various levels. I'd feel lot more secure in making changes.

 

[variant]

My nomination is this:

It doesn't make the choices equal, but makes them close enough to be equivalent that there's a more reasonable choice between the two than there is now.

What about for the 7th level ability, giving the animal companion a +2 Ability Score Increase and the option to take a feat instead? Feat possibilities could be Athlete, Charger, Durable, Grappler, Lucky, Mage Slayer, Martial Adept, Mobile, Resilient, Savage Attacker, Sentinel, Skulker, and Tough.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

What about for the 7th level ability, giving the animal companion a +2 Ability Score Increase and the option to take a feat instead? Feat possibilities could be Athlete, Charger, Durable, Grappler, Lucky, Mage Slayer, Martial Adept, Mobile, Resilient, Savage Attacker, Sentinel, Skulker, and and Tough.

That's certainly as good a choice as what I suggest; possibly better as feats are pretty valuable.

Sure, archery and duelist don't apply to beast attacks, but they do apply to attacks the ranger makes in the same turn as a beast attack, where a TWF ranger gains nothing during those turns.

That suggests that a beastmaster is slightly better off with a non-TWF style, while the TWF is slightly better off with the Hunter style. I think that's OK -- it's a reasonable choice either way, without an option being clearly superior -- and it's now the player's choice which option comes into play rather than a choice forced by poor design.

Again, it's not just a fighting style we're comparing to -- look at the alternatives other classes offer at similar level ranges. I keep going back to spiritual weapon, which has more effective combat use than the animal companion right now since its duration is effectively a full encounter. Sure, it doesn't have an out of combat use unlike a companion, but then as a spell its only a tiny fraction of a class feature compared to the animal companion which is the defining class feature of one of the two ranger archetypes. In context the spell could probably use a duration reduction to, say, 1 round per spell slot level used.

I'm really leery of a possible trip as a bonus action every round, but that may be a problem with the wolf, specifically, rather than the proposed changes to the beastmaster.

The trip DC is pretty low at 11 for the wolf and mastiff -- that's a straight 50/50 roll for a STR 10 opponent. The panther's 5% tougher, and has pounce to boot. Most of the time, though, especially fighting higher level opponents, that trip won't come off. The wolf would probably be a bit more equal if its bite attack were in the 1d6+3 range rather than 2d4+2, but I don't think they wrote the beast stats with animal companions in mind!

A tweak to that might be that the beast can't use a special attack if commanded as a bonus action -- you have to use your Action to get that -- though now the rule is getting a little clunky.

Edit: Another approach might be just to provide "generic" beast stats (e.g. AC 13, HP 12, STR/DEX etc, ATK +4 @ 1d6+3) and let the player call the beast whatever he or she wants. That way you have something designed to be balanced as a bonus action ability from the start. It prevents someone from putting out a supplement down the road that has a CR 1/4 velociraptor with a 2d6 pouce attack and poisoned fangs, or something similar.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Edit: Another approach might be just to provide "generic" beast stats (e.g. AC 13, HP 12, STR/DEX etc, ATK +4 @ 1d6+3) and let the player call the beast whatever he or she wants. That way you have something designed to be balanced as a bonus action ability from the start. It prevents someone from putting out a supplement down the road that has a CR 1/4 velociraptor with a 2d6 pouce attack and poisoned fangs, or something similar.

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.