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

[Mistwell]

And this opinion is presumably based on your extensive high-level playtesting of the class?

No and that is a fair response. Have you found that they play just fine a higher levels? I'm certainly open to being wrong in my observation, as I have not tried them at all at high levels.

I haven't got my PHB yet, so I can't weigh in in any detail, but it does annoy when people declare rules too weak or too strong without having tried them. Whatever playtesting WotC did on the class, it was more than any of you have under your belts.

I know from the playtesting I did do that lots of things in the playtest were resistant to non-magical weapons, and I know that lots of things would mostly ignore a DC 12 special ability. Those are two things which other PCs would not run into, but this companion appears to run into (though maybe there is a spell or some other rule I am not aware of that addresses that).

 

[Mistwell]

If you want the designers to see it why discuss it here? Why not on the wizards boards or tweet mike mearls or email them.

True, which is why I tweeted Mearls about this issue before posting here. I may refer him to this thread to see other people's reactions to the issue.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Not bad. I'd add the following: If you set the beast on a course of action, it can continue it. So if you tell it to "Guard" it will do so while you sleep. If you tell it "Attack" it will continue to attack the target you directed it towards until you call it off (which you can do as part of your next action).

I'd also give the thing 6HP per level instead of 4. We're talking about a Panther here.

maybe do it somewhat like the Druid's wild shape where its hp is based on features. So 4hp / level if it can fly, 5hp/level if it has some other special thing, and 6hp per level if it something like a panther.

I'll certainly use your idea of 6HP per level if someone is interested in playing a beastmaster ranger in my game. Same as the average Con 14 wizard seems ok for a creature that's expected to go into melee every fight. Enough to make sure it can survive one or two hits without making the beast a "tanking" option.

 

[Gargoyle]

Anyone have a player run a 4e beast master ranger from Martial Powers? I did. It worked pretty well, and also used the ranger's actions to attack, etc, but of course was different in many ways, mostly better:

- Beast companions enhanced hunter's quarry; your quarry could be the nearest enemy to you or your companion, greatly increasing its flexibility. No hunter's quarry in 5e.
- You could raise your beast companion from the dead with a ritual rather than just getting a new one. This allowed you to be more attached to a particular companion.
- There were specific stats for beast companions and they leveled with you. No levels for the 5e beasts, and you pick from what is a larger list with some choices that may not have been considered as possible beast companions, and therefore may not be RAI. Stats do scale in 5e with your proficiency bonus.
- There were common sense guidelines on independent actions for beast companions when you are unable command them. Basically it acted like a character, unless you were present but unconscious or dead, in which case it must first move to be adjacent to you before acting as it wished. A couple of sentences along these lines could be useful in 5e, but honestly I think it's just common sense and shouldn't be necessary.
- Your beast had two healing surges and could use second wind when you could. You could also use a minor action to use your healing surges to heal your beast companion when adjacent.
- You could choose from powers that relied on your beast. There are very few spells in the ranger spell list in 5e that synergize with beast companions. Of those at low levels, speak with animals is excellent for scouting, and barkskin can give them survivability, but there is nothing like the at will powers of a 4e beast master.

That same player from 4e rolled a 5e ranger and probably will go beast master, so I have an interest in making the subclass viable and satisfying. It feels like to me that it was designed with a minimum of playtesting, and that a lot of it was dragged and dropped into 5e without much consideration as to what made the 4e one compelling:

- You could raise the beast from the dead, so you kept the same one, allowing you to RP an emotional bond while still putting the beast at constant risk. Now they are disposable.
- No hunter's quarry means that the tactical advantages of a beast companion aren't as valuable. Tactial options from the DMG might help with this; for instance if rules for flanking are used etc, the beast companion will be much more valuable. Not sure I will bring such things into the game though.
- 5e combat seems deadlier at low levels making beast companions feel more vulnerable and exacerbating the problem of the "disposable" beast companion.

My thinking is that while I'm waiting for WotC to respond to everyone's queries on the class, I'm going to implement the following house rules to make it work a bit more like the 4e class:

Upon choosing the beast master archetype, rangers gain the life bond ability and add the following spell to their spell list:

Raise Beast Companion
1st-level necromancy (ritual)

Casting Time: 1 hour
Range: Touch
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous

You touch your beast companion that has been dead for no more than 10 days and that died for any reason except old age. The creature is restored to life with 1 hit point.
This spell neutralizes poison, cures all diseases, and lifts any curses affecting the creature when it died. The spell replaces damaged or missing organs and limbs.
The spell can even provide a new body if the original no longer exists, in which case you must speak the creature's name. The creature then appears in an unoccupied space you choose within 10 feet of you.

Life Bond: When your beast companion takes damage, your magical bond to the creature allows you to choose to take half of that damage yourself.


IMO, this is a pretty conservative way to give beast companions more survivability and allow for a long term beast companion, without increasing the power of a beast master ranger much. Will it still be weak? Possibly, but I believe there are some great tactical advantages with a beast master companion rather than DPR so I will wait and see before buffing it any further. But I am thinking of bringing back hunter's quarry too, for all rangers. I always thought it was a clever way to encourage them to be skirmishers, attacking from range, yet getting close and eventually to melee.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Anyone have a player run a 4e beast master ranger from Martial Powers? I did. It worked pretty well, and also used the ranger's actions to attack, etc, but of course was different in many ways, mostly better:

I played a beastmaster ranger for a while in 4E and enjoyed the character and the concept. I agree with your points; the selling point for me was there were sufficient abilities that synergized with the concept of "beast and ranger act together" that they compensated well for the merged actions. The 5E version preserves the action economy but at the loss of some synergy. A feat, ability, or a couple more spells designed to enhance the team aspect of the concept would be an improvement.

For example, getting advantage on the ranger's attack when the beast is within 5' of the target (like the wolf's pack tactics, only applying to the ranger) would be a simple and effective addition. More ppowerful (but potentially more game breaking) might be to give the breastmaster a sneak-attack-like damage bonus when the ranger and beast both attack the same target.

*snip*

Life Bond: When your beast companion takes damage, your magical bond to the creature allows you to choose to take half of that damage yourself.

Good concept, except for folks (like me) who would prefer that this bond isn't magical. Keep the idea, tweak the flavor text.

Without your life bond idea, I also like the idea above of 6x ranger level in hp vice 4 if the animal's CR doesn't scale.

 

[Runny]

I will rule that the ACo will send the turn dodging if it gets no commands. That cuts down on potential cheese and increases the ACo survivability.

 

[Dragongrief]

Good concept, except for folks (like me) who would prefer that this bond isn't magical. Keep the idea, tweak the flavor text.

Do Rangers have many special options with Reactions? If not, how about this:

"As a Reaction, you may exert yourself to interfere with a successful attack against your Animal Companion. You and your ACo each take half of the damage from the attack. You must be within 30' of your ACo's attacker, and must have line of sight to it."

Since HP are stamina, you basically pull off a knee-jerk action (chuck a rock/stick/whatever) that prevents the attacker from getting a full follow-through on the attack.

 

[machineelf]

For example, getting advantage on the ranger's attack when the beast is within 5' of the target (like the wolf's pack tactics, only applying to the ranger) would be a simple and effective addition.

Doesn't this already happen with the rules as written with the animal companion being able to take the help action to help the ranger (or whomever) attack? Or am I reading the rules incorrectly?

I do agree that the ranger should be able to give verbal commands without taking up an action, and that the beast should be able to respond appropriately without commands, like defend itself if it is attacked. And I think the ACo should be able to continue acting on its last command given unless a new command is given, such as continuing to fight an enemy once the initial verbal command is given.

That's how I'm going to run it in my game, anyway.

And since the animal companion can give the help action, then as long as it is near the ranger it can give the ranger advantage once per round on one of the ranger's attacks, or go give help to another player if so commanded.

 

[The Hitcher]

FYI, I tweeted a follow up question to Mearls:
[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?
[MENTION=38485]unknown[/MENTION]savage yes

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Doesn't this already happen with the rules as written with the animal companion being able to take the help action to help the ranger (or whomever) attack? Or am I reading the rules incorrectly?

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.