D&D 5E In Defense of the Beastmaster

BASHMAN · Sep 9, 2014

Juriel said:
Where does this keep coming from? Pets only add proficiency bonus to saves they are proficient with, any they are proficient with NO saves, so.

THIS. I'd certainly try to make that argument to a DM that they SHOULD have it, but I know it isn't RAW.

Psikerlord# · Sep 9, 2014

epochrpg said:
THIS. I'd certainly try to make that argument to a DM that they SHOULD have it, but I know it isn't RAW.

Hmm pets should probably have had Evasion built in (save for none, dont save for half on dex saves). Perhaps there will be a future feat....

Greater Animal Companion: Prerequisite Ranger pet. Your pet has HP equal to 6xRanger level (or it's animal maximum), whichever is higher. It also gains proficiency in dex saves, and the Evasion ability. Your wisdom score increases by 1.

Mouseferatu · Sep 9, 2014

Juriel said:
Where does this keep coming from? Pets only add proficiency bonus to saves they are proficient with, any they are proficient with NO saves, so.

You know, it's funny. With two exceptions, animal companions in 5e are almost exactly what they were in 3e--but those two exceptions make a huge difference.

Saving throws, and the fact it takes an action to command an attack. The latter has been the subject of whole threads unto itself, so I'm not going back into it here.

In terms of HP, while 3e ACos had a higher potential max, their average hp are a bit lower than the 5e version. In 3e, the combo of Hit Die and stat increases over the levels wound up giving them a total of +10 to hit and +10 to AC over the course of all 20 levels. Using the prof bonus in 5e, it's +6--which, given the bounded accuracy, seems about right to me.

3e ACos were hardier because 1) they had save proficiencies, and 2) they got evasion.

I realize we're getting into house rules territory, now, but if the DM just gives the ACo evasion and adds a line to the effect of "If the beast is not proficient in any saving throws, it becomes proficient in the saves in which its master has proficiency," I think that'll more or less fix it.

(Gah! Way-of-shadow'd by [MENTION=93321]Psikerlord#[/MENTION] !)

CapnZapp · Sep 9, 2014

Isn't the core problem that the fun way of running an animal companion is also a spotlight/attention hogging way?

That is, ACs need independent actions to feel fun and natural, but independent actions also mean a larger share of table time, decision space and so on?

To me, the only sustainable solution is to make ACs truly optional in the same explicit way Drow and Wild Mages are optional, make them independent the way people want them, and then only use them at tables where everybody is actively okay with having one player control effectively two characters.

Meaning no beastmasters in organized play or at tables where at least one player doesn't feel comfortable with them.

Of course, this should also govern summoned critters and the like to be fair.

SilverfireSage · Sep 9, 2014

epochrpg said:
You don't have enemy casters and dragons in your game? Because those things slaughter pets.

Sure I do, but not very often, and they don't have much AoE stuff anyway. My thoughts on that are thus:
1. AoE spells aren't often used in conjunction with a group of enemies. Typically the animal companion is going to be front line, attacking up close and personal. If a wizard has guards and that's who the pet is attacking, he isn't going to lay down a fireball spell in the middle of that out of fear of killing the only guys protecting him. He'll wait until they're dead, but at that point the wolf is probably up in his face and he can't do it anymore anyway.
2. Pets have almost exactly the same amount of health as casters in this edition. Every complaint you had about pets surviving a fireball is equally true of a wizard. It's true that a wolf will be more likely to be on the front lines so the points aren't exactly the same, but the wolf basically has a d8 per level, which is about as powerful as it's ever been.

Look, it's becoming clear that this is really the only point of contention that anyone has, so if you want to house rule it, I'm not going to care. My point was not about that, but rather about previous points of combat effectiveness and staying alive on the front lines. I think Juriel's point of having the animal companion run away at 0 hit points to come back when you've rested is probably the best house rule for that so far, so use that if you wish. But I'm excited for my group's gaming session this weekend with a lvl 10 beastmaster ranger in it. I'll come back to this thread after I've seen him in action, and yes, they will be fighting a dragon.

the Jester · Sep 9, 2014

Juriel said:
Where does this keep coming from? Pets only add proficiency bonus to saves they are proficient with, any they are proficient with NO saves, so.

I suspect that it's this:

5e PH pg. 93 said:
Add your proficiency bonus to the beast's AC, attack rolls, and damage rolls, as well as to any saving throws and skills it is proficient in.

The problem is, you can parse the second half of that sentence in either of two ways:

You add your bonus to saves the beast is proficient in and skills it is proficient in.

OR

You add your bonus to any saving throws the beast makes. You also add it to skills it is proficient in.

I'm pretty sure that the first parsing is intended, but I'm not so sure it's actually the better parsing. Adding your proficiency bonus to its saves might be just what it takes to enhance the beast's survivability, if it really is problematically weak.

Kobold Stew · Sep 9, 2014

the Jester said:
The problem is, you can parse the second half of that sentence in either of two ways:

You add your bonus to saves the beast is proficient in and skills it is proficient in.

OR

You add your bonus to any saving throws the beast makes. You also add it to skills it is proficient in.

I'm pretty sure that the first parsing is intended, but I'm not so sure it's actually the better parsing. Adding your proficiency bonus to its saves might be just what it takes to enhance the beast's survivability, if it really is problematically weak.

Whatever was intended, I believe the first of these is what the text says:

"it is proficient in" is governed by both noun clauses after "as well as": if that were not so, it would say something like:

Add your proficiency bonus to the beast's AC, attack rolls, damage rolls, and saving throws, as well as to any skills it is proficient in.

BASHMAN · Sep 9, 2014

SilverfireSage said:
Sure I do, but not very often, and they don't have much AoE stuff anyway. My thoughts on that are thus:
1. AoE spells aren't often used in conjunction with a group of enemies. Typically the animal companion is going to be front line, attacking up close and personal. If a wizard has guards and that's who the pet is attacking, he isn't going to lay down a fireball spell in the middle of that out of fear of killing the only guys protecting him. He'll wait until they're dead, but at that point the wolf is probably up in his face and he can't do it anymore anyway.
2. Pets have almost exactly the same amount of health as casters in this edition. Every complaint you had about pets surviving a fireball is equally true of a wizard. It's true that a wolf will be more likely to be on the front lines so the points aren't exactly the same, but the wolf basically has a d8 per level, which is about as powerful as it's ever been.

Look, it's becoming clear that this is really the only point of contention that anyone has, so if you want to house rule it, I'm not going to care. My point was not about that, but rather about previous points of combat effectiveness and staying alive on the front lines. I think Juriel's point of having the animal companion run away at 0 hit points to come back when you've rested is probably the best house rule for that so far, so use that if you wish. But I'm excited for my group's gaming session this weekend with a lvl 10 beastmaster ranger in it. I'll come back to this thread after I've seen him in action, and yes, they will be fighting a dragon.

Let us know what he rolled on his Dex save, what the DC of the save was, and how much damage the breath weapon did.

BASHMAN · Sep 9, 2014

Kobold Stew said:
Whatever was intended, I believe the first of these is what the text says:

"it is proficient in" is governed by both noun clauses after "as well as": if that were not so, it would say something like:

Add your proficiency bonus to the beast's AC, attack rolls, damage rolls, and saving throws, as well as to any skills it is proficient in.

That'd be nice. Hope I can convince an Adventurer's League GM that is the case...

Psikerlord# · Sep 9, 2014

the Jester said:
I suspect that it's this:

The problem is, you can parse the second half of that sentence in either of two ways:

You add your bonus to saves the beast is proficient in and skills it is proficient in.

OR

You add your bonus to any saving throws the beast makes. You also add it to skills it is proficient in.

I'm pretty sure that the first parsing is intended, but I'm not so sure it's actually the better parsing. Adding your proficiency bonus to its saves might be just what it takes to enhance the beast's survivability, if it really is problematically weak.

Yeah this is very unfortunate. Letting the beast add prof bonus to saves would help a lot. Alas. I would allow the more generous reading for a pet at my table.