Beastmaster Fix

[doctorbadwolf]

What I mean is that the pet needs more spotlight than the devs is willing to give them.

That's not the same as claiming the player needs two characters of equal spotlight.

I've long said there should be a beast resurrection low level spell on the Ranger list. If they really want a life long partner, they will carry a scoll of it always, and/or prepare that spell.

The beast needs to survive fireballs, yes, but it needs more than that. It needs to bring enough offensive to justify the party bringing it along, without stealing the ranger's own action.

You can't just take a wolf and give it 200 more hit points at level 20. At that level, having a single +4 bite for 7 damage would be a joke.

What is needed is to first ensure the animal companion isn't significantly more frail than any other character - and I don't mean the wizard that avoids combat, I mean any other melee combatant since the animal companion is a melee combatant.

Then all the offense upgrades that normally would have gone into the ranger chassis needs to be applied to the companion in a way that actually makes a difference. (You can't just increase the wolf's bite damage and keep the attack bonus at +4)

In the end, you will find that you must choose between two things:
* keeping it balanced by offering a weirdly underpowred ranger, beast or both
* keeping it fun by offering a weak:ish (but still viable) ranger coupled with a melee monster of a beast (that's utterly incapable of everything else)

To me the latter choice will mean more spotlight simply because the pet is there. Not only is it there, it's doing great stuff. And since the ranger can't come off as handicapped, the spotlight sum will have to be >1.

For me, it's only when people finally accept this state of affairs as fundamental facts, and stop looking for solutions that aren't there, the development of a PHB Beastmaster replacement becomes truly interesting.

None of that is factual.

The beast doesn’t need to do as much damage as a PC. It needs to survive, and contribute an amount of utility that is comparable with what the other ranger subclasses get at all tiers. That’s it.

At low to early mid levels, a wolf does that, most of the time. It doesn’t survive that well even then, but it mostly works. At high level, none of its numerical scaling keeps up, so it becomes a liability.

The beast does not need to be comparable to a PC. I said it already but it needs repeating. It only needs to continue providing roughly as much relative benefit as it does intitially, at later tiers, including being able to stick around for the whole adventure.

All the stuff about it needing to not seem weak compared to the ranger is just your preference, not fact.

 

[Mistwell]

None of that is factual.

The beast doesn’t need to do as much damage as a PC. It needs to survive, and contribute an amount of utility that is comparable with what the other ranger subclasses get at all tiers. That’s it.

At low to early mid levels, a wolf does that, most of the time. It doesn’t survive that well even then, but it mostly works. At high level, none of its numerical scaling keeps up, so it becomes a liability.

The beast does not need to be comparable to a PC. I said it already but it needs repeating. It only needs to continue providing roughly as much relative benefit as it does intitially, at later tiers, including being able to stick around for the whole adventure.

All the stuff about it needing to not seem weak compared to the ranger is just your preference, not fact.

I have no clue why you included my post in your quotes, but nothing you just said appears to be a reply to anything I said in that quote. Can you clarify?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I have no clue why you included my post in your quotes, but nothing you just said appears to be a reply to anything I said in that quote. Can you clarify?

Apparently I need to clear my browser data. I didn’t realize I’d quote you in that post. I quoted you earlier, and it must have kept the multi-quote thing in the browser for some reason. Sorry!

 

[CapnZapp]

None of that is factual.

The beast doesn’t need to do as much damage as a PC. It needs to survive, and contribute an amount of utility that is comparable with what the other ranger subclasses get at all tiers. That’s it.

At low to early mid levels, a wolf does that, most of the time. It doesn’t survive that well even then, but it mostly works. At high level, none of its numerical scaling keeps up, so it becomes a liability.

The beast does not need to be comparable to a PC. I said it already but it needs repeating. It only needs to continue providing roughly as much relative benefit as it does intitially, at later tiers, including being able to stick around for the whole adventure.

All the stuff about it needing to not seem weak compared to the ranger is just your preference, not fact.

I'm afraid you need to bring numbers.

What kind of "wolf" do you envision at level 20?

Thing is, you will find that even if the "wolf" survives, the players will ask: "what's the point of having it along if it only does 7 points of damage?"

You can't just split up a Ranger's projected DPR into two bodies. Say a level 20 Ranger is expected to do 40 DPR. So you say "it's balanced if the Ranger gets to do 33 and the Wolf 7, so all we need to do is maybe give the Wolf two attacks with a 50% hit rate on each".

What that results in, is the world's weirdest level 20 critter. A critter that survives as a level 20 wolf but only deals damage as a, what, CR 2 beast?

And yet, even so, the duo still claims more spotlight than a single character.

 

[CapnZapp]

Apparently I need to clear my browser data. I didn’t realize I’d quote you in that post. I quoted you earlier, and it must have kept the multi-quote thing in the browser for some reason. Sorry!

I'm backing up Dr. Bad Wolf here - I've essentially stopped using multi-quote, since it doesn't clear itself up after use.

Once a multi-quote is used, they need to "release" - that is, every time you hit "reply" all multi-quotes need to clear. Having to go back and manually uncheck multiquotes after each use is such a pain in the tail that I've found that it's easier to just quote each poster in turn, manually "collecting" the quotes.

And, of course, giving up and simply posting many individual replies instead...

PS. Do note that Morrus have stated a new forum platform is in the works, so I'm not expecting any fixes to the current system. DS.

PPS. Back on topic, let me just clear up that I don't feel I'm opposing any particular Beastmaster fix here.

All I'm saying is that whatever we can agree on fixes the Beastmaster, is something that will, by its very nature, be a spotlight-hogging solution. Or rather, my whole point is to ask the designers to give up trying to do the impossible: a Beastmaster subclass that doesn't take more spotlight than the Hunter subclass, yet gives the Beastmaster an animal companion that looks and feels "level-appropriate" all the way up to level 20.

What I'm trying to do here is preempt a lot of design work that still does not succeed, because its designer clings to the forlorn hope of creating the impossible. I wasn't trying to derail the thread; just focus it.

Or, even more to the point: the way to success in this regard is to already from the start unload the baggage of "spotlight neutrality". Once that is done, say by adding a sidebar in the PHB saying "the Beastmaster subclass is optional, and perhaps best used by a small or weak party, since it gives one player two characters, yada yada... use it when everybody is okay with this, trusting the Beastmaster player to play effectively and quickly, yada yada"

Once this is done, you will see that the design job of creating an animal companion that not not only balanced but also acceptable to budding Ranger players is MUCH easier. (Having a survivable companion will also speed up the Ranger's play turn immensely, since he or she no longer needs to micrmanage the pet's survival!) In fact, the job just went from impossible to possible!

 

[CapnZapp]

Another (hopefully constructive) way of looking at this is:

Very few Beastmaster designs look at the end result, the top level stats of the beast.

What I'm saying is that as a Beastmaster I want to be able to send in my wolf (owl, bear, owlbear, whatever) into melee and have it survive reasonably well.

In tier IV that means duking it out with Behirs or Fire Giants or Beholders - in plural.

If the design insists on atrocious Armor Class, that means hit points in the three hundreds. Now tell me, what kind of bite (claw, render etc) do a critter with more than 200 hit points have?

Remember, at high level doing insane amounts of melee damage is far less impressive than it used to be. I'm okay with a pet not being able to do much else than melee damage, so it better be insanely high for me to bother bringing the pet along.

Just bringing along a featureless bag of hit points that essentially does nothing except engage one enemy bruiser for a few rounds, and give my own DPR a tune-up? Not interested.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm afraid you need to bring numbers.

What kind of "wolf" do you envision at level 20?

Thing is, you will find that even if the "wolf" survives, the players will ask: "what's the point of having it along if it only does 7 points of damage?"

You can't just split up a Ranger's projected DPR into two bodies. Say a level 20 Ranger is expected to do 40 DPR. So you say "it's balanced if the Ranger gets to do 33 and the Wolf 7, so all we need to do is maybe give the Wolf two attacks with a 50% hit rate on each".

What that results in, is the world's weirdest level 20 critter. A critter that survives as a level 20 wolf but only deals damage as a, what, CR 2 beast?

And yet, even so, the duo still claims more spotlight than a single character.

I don’t need a spotlight neutral pet, I need one that isn’t more spotlight heavy than the phb BM with a wolf, panther, mastiff, or bear, already is.

So, scale all the math. Add proficiency to AC, let the ranger craft barding at normal armor costs or give a better AC calculation at higher tiers, increase HP, and add ranger prof bonus to attack, damage, saves, and skills. Then, look at the damage vs enemy HP math, and see how much a pet in each tier needs to deal, and make it happen. It will be a band, with some pets doing more or less damage per round, but that’s fine. I’d rather add more dice per attack than more attacks, bc the ranger’s turn shouldn’t take as long as two Hunter Ranger’s turns do, but whatever gets us there in the end. If that means that pets get a Sneak Attack (Pack Attack) style mechanic, great!

But the pet never needs to do as much damage as the ranger does, pet turn or pet attack, because the pet is a supplement, not a PC.

to clarify, I mean more spotlight than a phb BM pet gets at levels 3-5.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Another (hopefully constructive) way of looking at this is:

Very few Beastmaster designs look at the end result, the top level stats of the beast.

What I'm saying is that as a Beastmaster I want to be able to send in my wolf (owl, bear, owlbear, whatever) into melee and have it survive reasonably well.

In tier IV that means duking it out with Behirs or Fire Giants or Beholders - in plural.

If the design insists on atrocious Armor Class, that means hit points in the three hundreds. Now tell me, what kind of bite (claw, render etc) do a critter with more than 200 hit points have?

Remember, at high level doing insane amounts of melee damage is far less impressive than it used to be. I'm okay with a pet not being able to do much else than melee damage, so it better be insanely high for me to bother bringing the pet along.

Just bringing along a featureless bag of hit points that essentially does nothing except engage one enemy bruiser for a few rounds, and give my own DPR a tune-up? Not interested.

One thing I think will help is to use the Revise BM (whether you like the base class or not), with a couple exception.

1: add a fighting style called Pack Tactics. It lets you grant a creature you control a single attack as a bonus action when you use the attack action, and or gives you and a damage boost when you attack a creature that an ally has damaged this round, or something like that.

2: at lvl 5, let the ranger choose whether to take a second attack or have the beast attack, when the ranger uses the attack action.

3: give the pet and ranger better teamwork benefits at higher levels. Just flat out bonus damage, or speed, or whatever.

4: let the ranger and pet communicate.

5: add spells that work for any summoner, Familiar-caster, etc, but are design focused on making the beast part of the Rangers turn in a non intrusive, fairly simple, way. Stuff like the spells that key off a weapon attack, but using the beast, or concentration and all enemies within 10ft or the pet are in difficult terrain and take xdy piercing damage when they enter or start their turn in that aura. Stuff like that.

Such spells would be fun for summoner Druids, wizards and warlocks with familiars, and rangers of all kinds, who take summoning spells. Give the BM ranger a few extra spells, including some of these.

6: add Find Familiar to the Ranger spells list. Ppl that just want a exploration pet like an owl can take that. Let that fighting style have a line that lets a Familiar you control attack on its turn?

 

[CapnZapp]

I don’t need a spotlight neutral pet, I need one that isn’t more spotlight heavy than the phb BM with a wolf, panther, mastiff, or bear, already is.

So, scale all the math. Add proficiency to AC, let the ranger craft barding at normal armor costs or give a better AC calculation at higher tiers, increase HP, and add ranger prof bonus to attack, damage, saves, and skills. Then, look at the damage vs enemy HP math, and see how much a pet in each tier needs to deal, and make it happen. It will be a band, with some pets doing more or less damage per round, but that’s fine. I’d rather add more dice per attack than more attacks, bc the ranger’s turn shouldn’t take as long as two Hunter Ranger’s turns do, but whatever gets us there in the end. If that means that pets get a Sneak Attack (Pack Attack) style mechanic, great!

But the pet never needs to do as much damage as the ranger does, pet turn or pet attack, because the pet is a supplement, not a PC.

to clarify, I mean more spotlight than a phb BM pet gets at levels 3-5.

Can you provide an actual example? (Take a level 20 Ranger's wolf, for instance.)

What I mean is: saying "scale all the math" is easy, sounds reasonable, but isn't really saying anything at all. (If you don't, we can discuss the Tyrannosaurus Rex in a later post)

I didn't say the pet needs to do as much damage as the ranger does. (That said, a Beastmaster ranger is probably going do end up doing weak damage, so I would be surprised if the pet isn't going to end up doing exactly just that).

What I'm saying is: what is the pet bringing to the table? For it to earn its place at the table, it can't just be a sad sack of hit points.

The pet may be a "supplement", but unless you're talking about an abstract construct (maybe like the 4E Shaman's spirit animal?), it definitely needs "reasonable" stats for a melee combatant of its level.

Too many BM efforts start by looking at a wolf or whatever, add a nice-looking progression, but forget to ask "does the level 20 result end up being any good?" Any effort that expects the BM to sort-of forget about its pet at high levels is not worth my time.

So excuse me for asking, but there's a difference between "just adding" some numbers to the weak stats of a CR 1/4 creature, and achieving a reasonable critter that can hold its own against multiple behirs, fire giants and beholders since that is precisely what a level 20 Beastmaster expects of his or her pet.

Then let's judge spotlight.

The pet should absolutely not hog any spotlight. After all it should remain a simple melee bruiser (at best). But as I would call it, a Tyrannosaurus Rex (the highest CR beast in the MM; and therefore the closest thing we got to the level 20 Beastmaster's pet) deserves more spotlight than a panther or mastiff or whatever the PHB thinks is good enough.

 

[CapnZapp]

How would the Tyrannosaurus Rex fare as a pet if I were a level 20 Beast Master?

For instance, can I let it handle a couple of Fire Giants on its own, without having to stress inordinately its going to die on me?

That the Rex can't kill all its foes by itself is kind of okay. After all it's not supposed to outshine my party members. But I can't bring it along if I need to worry each and every turn its going to die. I don't have that worry for any other melee party member, and I shouldn't have to have that worry for my pet.

Fire Giant: two attacks each at +11 to hit, for 28 (6d6 + 7) damage.

The pet's AC is an atrocious 13, meaning that only 1's will miss. So each Giant will unload 53 damage per round, not counting criticals. The Rex has 136 hit points, so we can already state with certainty that this is not nearly enough.

Even if we give it AC 18 somehow (plate barding?) it still needs maybe twice as many hp. Even then it's borderline frail. We can't assume magics, so not sure to increase its AC from here.

PS. Of course it shouldn't be so bloody big, but if we reconceptualize the stats as a wolf or something we can say its size is medium. This will also downsize its attack, which of course is high for its CR (it's the King after all, and we used it mainly because it was the highest CR Beast, not because I think its attack is representative).

It's attack bonus, however, should definitely stay at +10, minimum.

I haven't looked at the progression (official or not), so I haven't got a clue if it comes anywhere close to this. Just thought it would help to see if we're even close to each other's position.