Beastmaster Fix

[Yunru]

Everyone knows the problem with the beastmaster; the beast is too frail, and takes to long to get a new one (eight hours once you found a new beast).

So here's three easy steps to fix that:
Instead of the higher of it's maximized hit points or 4xRanger level, your beast has it's maximized hit points plus 4xRanger level. This still doesn't solve all the problem, as it doesn't have any new hit dice to heal with, leading to step 2;
During each short rest, your beast regains hit points equal to 2xRanger level.
Finally, you can resummon your beast with 8 hours, rather than having to find a new one and then bond with it for 8 hours.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Seems simpler to use the revised ranger beast stats and bonuses, including the rule to resummon the beast as part of a long rest.

 

[Yunru]

Seems simpler to use the revised ranger beast stats and bonuses, including the rule to resummon the beast as part of a long rest.

Sure, but that's actually more complex, since you need to recalculate a lot of hidden DCs, like poison (which is 8+Prof+Con), or escapes (8+prof+Str).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sure, but that's actually more complex, since you need to recalculate a lot of hidden DCs, like poison (which is 8+Prof+Con), or escapes (8+prof+Str).

Sure, but it’s only extra work once, and spreads the benifits around the pet more well roundedly.

 

[ccs]

Everyone knows the problem with the beastmaster; the beast is too frail, and takes to long to get a new one (eight hours once you found a new beast).

So here's three easy steps to fix that:
Instead of the higher of it's maximized hit points or 4xRanger level, your beast has it's maximized hit points plus 4xRanger level. This still doesn't solve all the problem, as it doesn't have any new hit dice to heal with, leading to step 2;
During each short rest, your beast regains hit points equal to 2xRanger level.
Finally, you can resummon your beast with 8 hours, rather than having to find a new one and then bond with it for 8 hours.

No, the problems with the beastmaster are:

1) As written it's got a dumb-arsed 4e mechanic where the animal uses up one of your actions/attacks instead of just being able to act on an initiative count (yours or its own, doesn't much matter).

2) Most of the players trying to play a beastmaster.
They simply want too much out of a basic animal. Even a slightly improved basic animal.
And then they sob & cry when their furry gets squashed attacking something far beyond its pay grade - ogres, giants, dragons, demons, whatever - & they can't insta-summon it/a new one back ala a wizards familiar.
And gods forbid if fuzzy ever gets killed in an environment where his kind just isn't available....

One of these two problems is easier to fix than the other.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Much simpler solution is to make a couple of beast races and say you are limited to fighters, barbarians, rogues, monks, and druids (and psychics if they ever make an official class). That way Fido the PC wolf is matched up against Bob the human PC fighter, and all is well. Fido can take the sentinel feat and hang around with Bob, and all will be well.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No, the problems with the beastmaster are:

1) As written it's got a dumb-arsed 4e mechanic where the animal uses up one of your actions/attacks instead of just being able to act on an initiative count (yours or its own, doesn't much matter).

2) Most of the players trying to play a beastmaster.
They simply want too much out of a basic animal. Even a slightly improved basic animal.
And then they sob & cry when their furry gets squashed attacking something far beyond its pay grade - ogres, giants, dragons, demons, whatever - & they can't insta-summon it/a new one back ala a wizards familiar.
And gods forbid if fuzzy ever gets killed in an environment where his kind just isn't available....

One of these two problems is easier to fix than the other.

1 is a problem, yes, though hardly “a dumb-arsed 4e mechanic”. 2 is just complete BS. The literal point of the subclass is to have a pet that fights beside you. If it can’t do that, it’s pointless. It isn’t any better than a normal animal at scouting, the subclass gives no features whatsoever to let you get information from it, etc. A player that wants a scout pet would be better off by an enormous margin just getting the Find Familiar spell.

And of course the insipid nonsense about “sobbing and crying” when their “furry” gets killed is just complete BS with no validity or place in a discussion full of grown adults.

 

[Yunru]

And of course the insipid nonsense about “sobbing and crying” when their “furry” gets killed is just complete BS with no validity or place in a discussion full of grown adults.

Obviously most beastmasters must have a character age of <15

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Much simpler solution is to make a couple of beast races and say you are limited to fighters, barbarians, rogues, monks, and druids (and psychics if they ever make an official class). That way Fido the PC wolf is matched up against Bob the human PC fighter, and all is well. Fido can take the sentinel feat and hang around with Bob, and all will be well.

I don’t think most BM players want to play an animal, and letting the companion have the full power of a PC class is both more complex and more spotlight heavy than a pet feature should be.

 

[CapnZapp]

A pet feature should definitely be spotlight heavy.

Otherwise the pet - per definition - is too frail/weak to fulfill its role.

The problem is that the design must acknowledge that any pet feature worth having must abandon any hope of being spotlight neutral.

Any effort that attempts to keep the pet spotlight neutral fails to understand the inherent need of an animal companion function:

That the player wishes to play TWO characters, neither of which is so frail/powerless as to be a weak link or liability to the party.