-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Beastmaster Fix
- Thread starter Yunru
- Start date
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Cap: on mobile so quoting is a pain.
I don’t think that most BM pets need to be able to tank multiple big enemies, even at level 20, but that does bring up an interesting facet to this.
The BM needs options at subclass levels, so you can have a tougher, deadlier, or more utilitarian, pet. A bear tank pet should be able to tank a couple fire giants without too much worry (at my table, most non tank PCs would be in danger in that situation, but I’ll skip that), but a wolf should be on par with a rogue, not a heavy armor melee character, in terms of staying in melee.
But we don’t need to run the numbers on anything but attack and damage, because we have known values for AC and HP. I’d give all BM pets proficiency on all saves, and Evasion, at ~ lvl 11.
As for damage, again there are many ways to go. The simplest is to use the known numbers for scaling, and simply give them a Pack Attack trait that adds d8s to their damage once per turn, and let them have a turn, make 1 Attack regardless of if they normally have multiattack, run those numbers and adjust from there.
We don’t need to hash out the exact numbers unless you want to literally build a new BM subclass in this thread. I’d say that how much damage it can do depends on how often it will die, and whether or not you can bring it back as part of a long rest, magically.
If it’s PHB style “get a new one”, and the math means it will die often, then it needs to be pretty damn strong, and put the ranger somewhere around Hunter+15% to 20% in rounds where the ranger and beast both hit. Maybe higher. Which is probably a bad thing.
If we can expect to have for most fights, with good scaling HP and AC, and a Xgold ritual as part of long rest to get the same pet back, then it can bring the ranger up to just over the Hunter’s average damage per round. Maybe 5%, 10% at most.
I think you’re the only person I’ve seen argue that it’s a problem if the beast doesn’t do impressive damage on its own, but I’m willing to be proven wrong. Either way, I think it’s fine if we look at average damage for the Hunter at each tier, and assume that the BM should be slightly above that.
I’d also give players the choice between the flurry of attacks it gets at 11, or an extra single target damage boost, or a taunt/mark ability to bring enemies to it, or even some kind of support ability, where anyone attack a creature engaged with the pet or marked by it or whatever gets a damage boost.
There is a lot we can do, other than pure DPR.
I just don’t buy the idea that the pet needs to match a t-rex in damage just because it’s got a lot of HP. But, if that is a must, let it do so via scaling to stay at the same percentage of added damage and defense compared to the base class, and new ranger spells.
I don’t think that most BM pets need to be able to tank multiple big enemies, even at level 20, but that does bring up an interesting facet to this.
The BM needs options at subclass levels, so you can have a tougher, deadlier, or more utilitarian, pet. A bear tank pet should be able to tank a couple fire giants without too much worry (at my table, most non tank PCs would be in danger in that situation, but I’ll skip that), but a wolf should be on par with a rogue, not a heavy armor melee character, in terms of staying in melee.
But we don’t need to run the numbers on anything but attack and damage, because we have known values for AC and HP. I’d give all BM pets proficiency on all saves, and Evasion, at ~ lvl 11.
As for damage, again there are many ways to go. The simplest is to use the known numbers for scaling, and simply give them a Pack Attack trait that adds d8s to their damage once per turn, and let them have a turn, make 1 Attack regardless of if they normally have multiattack, run those numbers and adjust from there.
We don’t need to hash out the exact numbers unless you want to literally build a new BM subclass in this thread. I’d say that how much damage it can do depends on how often it will die, and whether or not you can bring it back as part of a long rest, magically.
If it’s PHB style “get a new one”, and the math means it will die often, then it needs to be pretty damn strong, and put the ranger somewhere around Hunter+15% to 20% in rounds where the ranger and beast both hit. Maybe higher. Which is probably a bad thing.
If we can expect to have for most fights, with good scaling HP and AC, and a Xgold ritual as part of long rest to get the same pet back, then it can bring the ranger up to just over the Hunter’s average damage per round. Maybe 5%, 10% at most.
I think you’re the only person I’ve seen argue that it’s a problem if the beast doesn’t do impressive damage on its own, but I’m willing to be proven wrong. Either way, I think it’s fine if we look at average damage for the Hunter at each tier, and assume that the BM should be slightly above that.
I’d also give players the choice between the flurry of attacks it gets at 11, or an extra single target damage boost, or a taunt/mark ability to bring enemies to it, or even some kind of support ability, where anyone attack a creature engaged with the pet or marked by it or whatever gets a damage boost.
There is a lot we can do, other than pure DPR.
I just don’t buy the idea that the pet needs to match a t-rex in damage just because it’s got a lot of HP. But, if that is a must, let it do so via scaling to stay at the same percentage of added damage and defense compared to the base class, and new ranger spells.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
Fenrir
Sacrosanct
Legend
I think some folks here are making a critical flaw in their analysis by continuing to evaluate the worth of a pet based on combat DPR. CapnnZapp asked what it brought to the table and then immediately presents the table as only math. It’s not. It’s 3 equal pillars.
That sort of analysis completely ignored factors like having two allies on the battlefield at two completely different locations. I.e, the player essentially affects multiple locations while every other player only impacts the one where their PC is. This enables the BM to maximize flanking, hit and run, and other tactics. The pet attacking while the ranger uses an item, heals an ally, moves to a different area, etc for example. And it’s an unlimited resource that isn’t limited to a per short or long rest mechanic.
These arguments about math and DPR also completely ignore the out of combat benefits. Like scouting, detection, etc.
These are all very real and tangible benefits the class brings to the game. And when you bring benefits other classes can’t, then the balance has to come from other areas. Darn right a BM and his or her pet shouldn’t do as much DPR as other classes when they bring other benefits, or the class is OP and imbalanced. And if people who chooses to play the game as arena combat thinks the class is extra weak, that’s on them for choosing an alternative playstyle different from the base assumption (3 equal pillars) that ignores other benefits. Just because you don’t use those benefits doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
On a side related not, I loathe any ability to just summon a new pet automatically or immediately. The pet is a living being, not a spirit animal. If it dies, then the ease on getting a new one should be dictated by in game events and area. Otherwise it’s a huge immersion break for me. YMMV of course.
That sort of analysis completely ignored factors like having two allies on the battlefield at two completely different locations. I.e, the player essentially affects multiple locations while every other player only impacts the one where their PC is. This enables the BM to maximize flanking, hit and run, and other tactics. The pet attacking while the ranger uses an item, heals an ally, moves to a different area, etc for example. And it’s an unlimited resource that isn’t limited to a per short or long rest mechanic.
These arguments about math and DPR also completely ignore the out of combat benefits. Like scouting, detection, etc.
These are all very real and tangible benefits the class brings to the game. And when you bring benefits other classes can’t, then the balance has to come from other areas. Darn right a BM and his or her pet shouldn’t do as much DPR as other classes when they bring other benefits, or the class is OP and imbalanced. And if people who chooses to play the game as arena combat thinks the class is extra weak, that’s on them for choosing an alternative playstyle different from the base assumption (3 equal pillars) that ignores other benefits. Just because you don’t use those benefits doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
On a side related not, I loathe any ability to just summon a new pet automatically or immediately. The pet is a living being, not a spirit animal. If it dies, then the ease on getting a new one should be dictated by in game events and area. Otherwise it’s a huge immersion break for me. YMMV of course.
CapnZapp
Legend
Worrying about BM DPR + AC DPR > average character DPR is leading you astray, and will never result in a viable pet.
Since there's two of you, to be "balanced" both characters needs atrocious DPR. Which makes no goddamn sense for a fighter-y character with a melee brute of a beast!
At the very least let's compare to top DPR, not average DPR. Since that's roughly twice as much, it at least gives use leeway for decent DPR for both master and pet. After all, you're bring with you this second entity, that's generally a liability. (And why bring it along if it makes no difference? If you could just be a Hunter Ranger, and be just as effective, I mean. No, if we don't consider it "unbalanced" to buy a war dog or to contract a company of Veterans, we can't keep the weird viewpoint that the Animal Companion must be a zero sum game! It's supposed to be the archetypal "bring a friend" subclass, goddammit! If it doesn't actually add anything, then it's mostly just adding a weak link in the party's chain, and everybody's better off booting it at asking the player to respec. Thus, spotlight!)
And again: don't forget that the pet knows only melee. At high levels, damage generally balloons - doing 1 point of damage simply isn't very valuable any more.
But what I'm most concerned about is defense. The PHB is so utterly pathetic I hesitate to draw any conclusions from it. That is, yes, you can analyze the PHB and say "the pet is basically meant to die, a lot". But that's backwards thinking.
I think a large portion of Beastmasters want one and the same beast to adventure with them for their whole career.
Having to continuously resurrect their beloved companion is an ugly band-aid for the real solution: make it so the pet doesn't die significantly more often than any other party member.
I note you haven't committed to any AC or HP, you just say we have "known numbers". I don't know what that means, but feel free to direct me to a specific reference, or better, just tell me the numbers.
As for pets with different foci, I'm all for that. But the first order of business must be to settle on a reasonable "simple" pet, one that acts as a melee bruiser.
(After all, abilities like fly or scent are almost nothing at high level. Any exploratory abilities are best brought by the ranger, not the pet - at least assuming we're sticking with non-magical beasts)
Zapp
PS. One more thing, that I don't want to devote a whole post for: Oh no, not the "equal pillars" myth again.
Look at the amount of rules for each pillar, Sacrosanct. Look at the actual content of any published official adventure module.
They may say the game is about all three pillars equally, but what that means in practice is 80% combat, 5% exploration, 5 % social and you can distribute the remaining 10% to suit your play style.
Few if any scenarios are meaningfully derailed or delayed by lacking in exploration. There's not even one relevant social challenge that can't be short-circuited by a Charm Person spell (or combat) per scenario on average!
Perhaps you meant that YOU play 33%, 33%, 33%? Because that's something different.
Just let the equal pillars fantasy rest. It's just cakeism from WotC, to borrow a brexism.
In this context, I can only read you bringing up "three pillars" to mean one thing: "the pet needs to easily die each and every time, and that makes for a better game". That's trolling the thread imo. I'm in this thread precisely because I'm trying to make a point: that the fact the pet deserves to be viably sturdy makes the Beastmaster subclass require more than its fair share of spotlight, and that should be the starting position of its design. Therefore your POV is antithetical to mine, and I won't address you further on this subject.
Tl;dr: If you're happy with the PHB Ranger, excellent - stay with that, and have fun! But I'm not.
Since there's two of you, to be "balanced" both characters needs atrocious DPR. Which makes no goddamn sense for a fighter-y character with a melee brute of a beast!
At the very least let's compare to top DPR, not average DPR. Since that's roughly twice as much, it at least gives use leeway for decent DPR for both master and pet. After all, you're bring with you this second entity, that's generally a liability. (And why bring it along if it makes no difference? If you could just be a Hunter Ranger, and be just as effective, I mean. No, if we don't consider it "unbalanced" to buy a war dog or to contract a company of Veterans, we can't keep the weird viewpoint that the Animal Companion must be a zero sum game! It's supposed to be the archetypal "bring a friend" subclass, goddammit! If it doesn't actually add anything, then it's mostly just adding a weak link in the party's chain, and everybody's better off booting it at asking the player to respec. Thus, spotlight!)
And again: don't forget that the pet knows only melee. At high levels, damage generally balloons - doing 1 point of damage simply isn't very valuable any more.
But what I'm most concerned about is defense. The PHB is so utterly pathetic I hesitate to draw any conclusions from it. That is, yes, you can analyze the PHB and say "the pet is basically meant to die, a lot". But that's backwards thinking.
I think a large portion of Beastmasters want one and the same beast to adventure with them for their whole career.
Having to continuously resurrect their beloved companion is an ugly band-aid for the real solution: make it so the pet doesn't die significantly more often than any other party member.
I note you haven't committed to any AC or HP, you just say we have "known numbers". I don't know what that means, but feel free to direct me to a specific reference, or better, just tell me the numbers.
As for pets with different foci, I'm all for that. But the first order of business must be to settle on a reasonable "simple" pet, one that acts as a melee bruiser.
(After all, abilities like fly or scent are almost nothing at high level. Any exploratory abilities are best brought by the ranger, not the pet - at least assuming we're sticking with non-magical beasts)
Zapp
PS. One more thing, that I don't want to devote a whole post for: Oh no, not the "equal pillars" myth again.
Look at the amount of rules for each pillar, Sacrosanct. Look at the actual content of any published official adventure module.
They may say the game is about all three pillars equally, but what that means in practice is 80% combat, 5% exploration, 5 % social and you can distribute the remaining 10% to suit your play style.
Few if any scenarios are meaningfully derailed or delayed by lacking in exploration. There's not even one relevant social challenge that can't be short-circuited by a Charm Person spell (or combat) per scenario on average!
Perhaps you meant that YOU play 33%, 33%, 33%? Because that's something different.
Just let the equal pillars fantasy rest. It's just cakeism from WotC, to borrow a brexism.
In this context, I can only read you bringing up "three pillars" to mean one thing: "the pet needs to easily die each and every time, and that makes for a better game". That's trolling the thread imo. I'm in this thread precisely because I'm trying to make a point: that the fact the pet deserves to be viably sturdy makes the Beastmaster subclass require more than its fair share of spotlight, and that should be the starting position of its design. Therefore your POV is antithetical to mine, and I won't address you further on this subject.
Tl;dr: If you're happy with the PHB Ranger, excellent - stay with that, and have fun! But I'm not.
Last edited:
Of course Zapp, of course. Sure. I'm not going to argue with your delusions on what they should do.
But I will argue with you not knowing fixed numbers. Of course you do, don't be lazy. The beast's stats are listed, the boosts they get are listed. So yes, you do know the numbers, if you bothered to look them up.
But I will argue with you not knowing fixed numbers. Of course you do, don't be lazy. The beast's stats are listed, the boosts they get are listed. So yes, you do know the numbers, if you bothered to look them up.
Sacrosanct
Legend
CapnZapp, it’s not a myth. Once again, you’re assuming your playstyle is how everyone else plays. That assumption is why you CONSTANTLY complain about the game when most don’t. Out of the box, it’s not designed for your style.
For one, it’s a complete fallacy to say the game is meant to be played mostly combat because that’s where most of the rule page count goes. The book is mostly spell descriptions, so that means that spellcasting is supposed to have five times as often as attacking with a weapon?
As has been explained over and over, combat has the most rules because it has the most variables, NOT that it means you spend most of your time doing combat. We know there are three equal pillars because it literally says there are three equal pillars. With the exception of 4e, which turned the game into a tactical battle map which resulted in entire sessions being nothing but combat because it was so time consuming, D&D has never stressed one pillar of the other as far as how you were supposed to devote your time. It’s not unusual for tables to have entire sessions without any combat at all.
So stop acting like your preference of arena combat is the right way to play the game. You’re objectively wrong.
And I never said I’m happy with the original PHB ranger. That is a straw man. I said people who view D&D through combat only who think the class is extra weak is on them, not the game. Those are two totally different things. My statement doesn’t mean it can’t be improved either, so stop before you claim I said that as well.
Frankly, I think it reaches new disengenous levels even for you to accuse me of trolling the thread based on an argument I never even remotely made. Nothing in my post implies or infers I think the beast needs to die all the time. Knock it off please.
For one, it’s a complete fallacy to say the game is meant to be played mostly combat because that’s where most of the rule page count goes. The book is mostly spell descriptions, so that means that spellcasting is supposed to have five times as often as attacking with a weapon?
As has been explained over and over, combat has the most rules because it has the most variables, NOT that it means you spend most of your time doing combat. We know there are three equal pillars because it literally says there are three equal pillars. With the exception of 4e, which turned the game into a tactical battle map which resulted in entire sessions being nothing but combat because it was so time consuming, D&D has never stressed one pillar of the other as far as how you were supposed to devote your time. It’s not unusual for tables to have entire sessions without any combat at all.
So stop acting like your preference of arena combat is the right way to play the game. You’re objectively wrong.
And I never said I’m happy with the original PHB ranger. That is a straw man. I said people who view D&D through combat only who think the class is extra weak is on them, not the game. Those are two totally different things. My statement doesn’t mean it can’t be improved either, so stop before you claim I said that as well.
Frankly, I think it reaches new disengenous levels even for you to accuse me of trolling the thread based on an argument I never even remotely made. Nothing in my post implies or infers I think the beast needs to die all the time. Knock it off please.
Similar Threads
D&D (2024)
Shapechange Spell a bit OP now?