sorry, typed a lot of this on my ipad which is awful for typing.
D&D 5E Ranger
sorry, typed a lot of this on my ipad which is awful for typing.
i was making the comparison to a summoning spell. sure its not a great comparison, but why do summoned creatures require no actions, but a companion does. that's what i was trying to point out.
and taking animal companion reduces your dpr until possibly level 11...when the animal gets to attack twice for one action.
Sword of Spirit
Legend
That...is absurd. I can't believe they dropped the ball that badly, especially in contrast the the later write up about what you can do with summoned creatures.
Yes, exactly. An animal companion is an animal. If you can have a panther as a pet who is smart enough to act on its own, you can also have an animal companion who is smart enough to act on it's own. Houseruling it to say that if you use your action you can command your animal companion to take actions in addition to the normal actions it takes--kind of like a warlord.
Class feature then becomes:
1. You have a pet that is slightly more powerful than a normal animal, but more or less acts (and takes actions) like one.
2. You can give up your action(s) to give it additional action(s).
I'm not seeing a problem with that, unless the campaign assumes you can't have a pet without a class feature--which is silly. Same thing goes for any other class. Anyone can make friends with a pseudo-dragon, for instance.
Ranger's aren't at all weak martially. With Hunter Horde Breaker and Volley it should be fairly easy to score 3-4(or more) attacks per round and with a base Sharpshooter longbow you're looking at 1d8+15 per target. Grab a legendary bow and you're talking 1d8+2d6+15 damage per target.
That's a pretty impressive amount of damage output for not expending any resources.
That's a pretty impressive amount of damage output for not expending any resources.
Mouseferatu
Hero
Summons are of limited duration and won't be appearing in every fight. Animal companions are constant.
Now, does that mean it'd be unbalanced to find a different way to do companions? Probably not, though it'd require some tweaking. But at a guess, the main concern wasn't balance by numbers, but to maintain the action economy. A character who gets an "extra" turn now and again (summoning) is far less disruptive to that economy than a character who gets to go twice every round.
Again, not saying the solution as written is the best. I'm not fond of it myself, on first look (though I haven't seen it in play). Just saying, there's more to be considered than just damage dealt.
Now, does that mean it'd be unbalanced to find a different way to do companions? Probably not, though it'd require some tweaking. But at a guess, the main concern wasn't balance by numbers, but to maintain the action economy. A character who gets an "extra" turn now and again (summoning) is far less disruptive to that economy than a character who gets to go twice every round.
Again, not saying the solution as written is the best. I'm not fond of it myself, on first look (though I haven't seen it in play). Just saying, there's more to be considered than just damage dealt.
Sword of Spirit
Legend
To summarize the logic behind my objection to animal companions who can't act independently:
D&D includes a lot of gamey elements. It's designed that way. It is important for it to work in the balance department. D&D also supports moderate simulationism. It's important to the brand to continue to support it. A good solution takes both of those into account. Having animal companions incapable of acting without direction (or saying that the only way a person can even have a pet is through a class feature) supports game balance but is poorly suited to moderate simulationism. They should have made a better design choice that supported both goals.
D&D includes a lot of gamey elements. It's designed that way. It is important for it to work in the balance department. D&D also supports moderate simulationism. It's important to the brand to continue to support it. A good solution takes both of those into account. Having animal companions incapable of acting without direction (or saying that the only way a person can even have a pet is through a class feature) supports game balance but is poorly suited to moderate simulationism. They should have made a better design choice that supported both goals.
Branduil
Hero
The TWF and/or Beastmaster Ranger looks fairly weak, but the class's abilities seem to synergize nicely with an Archery Hunter. If you take the Sharpshooter feat, the -5 penalty is less harsh because of the +2 Archery bonus. Assuming you can consistently hide and get off the first shot in combat, the combo of Advantage/Sharpshooter could give you some pretty nice damage.
Verys Arkon
First Post
I would say that the animal companion rules would for the template for PCs that want to have a pet sans class feature. I wouldn't allow a non-hunter to get a pet that has full independent actions. Or if I did, it would count as another PC for XP division and encounter balancing. I don't think it is fair to compare a beast master's companion to a pet gained through RP and the DM's permission (not that there is anything wrong with DMs allowing pets in their campaigns).
Similar Threads
