D&D 5E How might you fix the beastmaster's animal companion?

[Psikerlord#]

I would have the ranger proficiency bonus to be added to ALL saves. I would let the companions attack order to be given as a bonus action. I think these two things would make the companion both more durable and give the ranger better ability in combat that rivals other marital classes.

Yep something like the above.

Feat: Greater Animal Companion
1. You can give an order to your animal companion as a bonus action, which it follows to the best of its ability until incapacitated. Changing orders requires another bonus action.
2. Your Animal companion gains your prof bonus on all saves.
3. If not given an order, your animal companion may take actions other than defending itself, depending on all the circumstances at the DM's discretion.
4. Your Animal companion follows the Death and Dying rules like a PC.

 

[PnPgamer]

Just make the companion work on its own. It doesnt cost your action to make the animal attack.

 

[Eejit]

d10 HD and can benefit from Hunter's Mark cast by its master.

 

[Baumi]

My main Problem with the Beastmaster is, that it seems that there is no official way to heal them besides Magic (no Hit-Dice, no healing together with the Ranger, etc.).

 

[Minigiant]

My main Problem with the Beastmaster is, that it seems that there is no official way to heal them besides Magic (no Hit-Dice, no healing together with the Ranger, etc.).

The beast has the HD in it's stat block.
A mastiff has 1 d8 HD.
It's nothing however.

The beast also has death saving throws.

I think we will just let the companion attack on its own, since that is the only thing that really makes sense to me in the narrative. We always think of companions more like extra party members anyway, so it doesn't matter if they are overpowered. I guess the player has too much power, but the ranger himself doesn't, so it doesn't seem a problem .

That exactly is the problem.

WOTC cannot write the PHB with something which could be overpowered or broken. An individual group could be okay with a "super beast". But a game designer can't put that in the book, they want to be called out by fans who see it as broken.

A ranger with 10x ranger HP and attacks on its own might be fine for the Thursday group at FLGS# 27. But if Mike Mearls okayed that, I and many others would be blowing his twitter up.

 

[Klaus]

What's your idea?

Commanding the companion with a bonus action is an interesting idea. Might even make the "replace Extra Attack with a beast attack" notation, since a ranger with Extra Attacks could still use his bonus action to tell the beast to strike. But more likely, the beast would be a free Advantage source.

I agree that certain companions are needed: bears and horses, mostly, since everything from eagles to tigers could conceivably be covered with a little reskinning of hawks, mastiffs and panthers. I could see a horse being allowed at 3rd level, since it's not exactly a combat juggernaut. But a black bear (not to mention a brown bear, or a tiger) would need to be higher-level options, and that goes against the "my companion was raised with me" vibe.

Perhaps a "proficiency bonus adjustment"? Lions and tigers and bears (oh my) could take a -2 penalty to the proficiency bonus they get to add (so it begins at +0 and goes only to +4)?

 

[CapnZapp]

Well the thing with the beast is:

What do you want to do with your beast companion?

Do you want a MMO beast master where the beast is a com at monster with great combat stats and the master just orders it around and tossed support spells on it?

Do you want a WOW hunter where master and beast are damage strikers in party situations and in solo the master has the beast "tank" for him?

Do you want a Dar the beastnaster style where the beast is tough enough to handle minions alone and independently but sits out big fights?

Do you want a Nakaruru style beast master where the beast is just a special attack?

Do you want a Kiba Inuzuka style beast master where the beast is a special attack and utility item?

All of these are totally different and require difference features.

Now stop it Minigiant. YOU reduce any kind of beastmaster where the animal companion is a reliable fighting ally to things like "a MMO beast master" or "WOW hunter".

This is not an universal truth. In fact, I think it is derisive, belittling and completely out of line. Say after me:

"Regardless of my own likes and dislikes, having an animal companion act as someone who can save my ass in a tough fight is a very common, perfectly natural and a completely reasonable wish for the average gamer to have."

Now, whether the D&D designers have succeeded or failed in fulfilling that wish is a different discussion.

 

[Zaran]

Yep something like the above.

Feat: Greater Animal Companion
1. You can give an order to your animal companion as a bonus action, which it follows to the best of its ability until incapacitated. Changing orders requires another bonus action.
2. Your Animal companion gains your prof bonus on all saves.
3. If not given an order, your animal companion may take actions other than defending itself, depending on all the circumstances at the DM's discretion.
4. Your Animal companion follows the Death and Dying rules like a PC.

I really dislike feats that fix problems. I think if you think it's a problem house rule it.

 

[Minigiant]

Now stop it Minigiant. YOU reduce any kind of beastmaster where the animal companion is a reliable fighting ally to things like "a MMO beast master" or "WOW hunter".

This is not an universal truth. In fact, I think it is derisive, belittling and completely out of line. Say after me:

"Regardless of my own likes and dislikes, having an animal companion act as someone who can save my ass in a tough fight is a very common, perfectly natural and a completely reasonable wish for the average gamer to have."

Now, whether the D&D designers have succeeded or failed in fulfilling that wish is a different discussion.

You miss my point.

My point is

Rexxar and Misha (world or Warcraft)
Kiba and Akamaru (Naruto)
Rikoruru and Mamahaha (SNK)
Jon Snow and Ghost (A Song of Ice and Fire)
Batman and Ace (Batman)
He Man and Battlecat (He Man)
Soundwave and Ravage (Transformers)
Warden Commander and Mabari (Dragon Age)

They all have different master pet relationships.

Batman doesnt have his dog help him fight Killer Croc or Bane but sniffs out trails for him and can take minor unarmed thugs.

Whereas Rexxar sends Huffer and Misha to the enemies with a kill command. Doesn't matter if it's a demon lord.

And Kiba uses Akumaru as a booster to his ninjutsu spells and keeps his dog behind him or under his jacket.

Edit:
In some MMMOs and video games, beast pets are low damage high defense tanks. In others they are squishy damage dealers. In others beast companions are tough in solo but too squishy in groups.

Even in D&D ranger companions are different in usage. 3rd edition ranger companions were too weak to fight with dumping magic on them. So a smart ranger in 3rd used their animal's other features: flight, scent, swimming, low light visions. But in 4e, rangers can have beasts right up with them in the front or even alone there.

 

[Mephista]

I think making their attack option be a bonus attack works with style choice. If you want to duel wield then the companion doesn't attack. If you want to cast Hunter's Mark, then the companion doesn't attack. If you want the companion to only help you, then you get only your Attack action with advantage.

This is a problem. Everything that the Ranger wants to do involves a bonus action.

Use Hunter Marks or Entangling Strike or any of the various arrow spells? Bonus action.
Use Shield Master feat? Bonus action
Dual Wielding? Bonus action.
Use a pet? Bonus action.

We are very quickly moving into the "Ranger is only good as an archer" territory, which is an issue with how good the Fighter is with a bow. Iconic rangers involve one of three weapon styles - the Aragorn (sword and board), the Drizzt (dual wielding), and the Archer. Both the Beastmaster and the Hunter subclasses need to allow all three styles to function. Two of those three styles require bonus actions for using the weapon, and the Archer needs bonus actions for the archery spells. I am beginning to really think that fixing the Beastmaster isn't enough. The entire class needs to be revamped.

Or turned into a vamp. Undead ranger... mmm.....


More seriously. The only way to fix the Beastmaster is to completely decouple it from the Ranger's action economy, then keep the damage from the animal companion roughly equal to the damage from the Hunter class. The Druid's and Conjurer's summons don't take up her action. The Necromancer's undead don't. Dominated monsters don't. The Chain Warlock's familiar kinda does, but only for the attack action, which is strangely decoupled from the familiar taking any other action, like the Help action.

The Beastmaster's rules are completely and utterly inconstant with how every other "pet class" operates. And that's always going to hurt it compared to everyone else.

I would make the Healing of the Beast come from the Ranger's own spell slots. I am of the opinion that Hunter Marks should be a thing for the Hunter class (hey! the name fits!), so the Beastmaster should be saving slots for being all Archery or healing the pet.