D&D 5E Beastmaster's animal companion: can it survive for 2 rounds?
The Hitcher
Explorer
And this opinion is presumably based on your extensive high-level playtesting of the class?
I haven't got my PHB yet, so I can't weigh in in any detail, but it does annoy when people declare rules too weak or too strong without having tried them. Whatever playtesting WotC did on the class, it was more than any of you have under your belts.
BASHMAN
Basic Action Games
Let me address the 800 pound gorilla riding an elephant in the room here (other than the companions having far insuficient hp).
Your animal companion is 30 feet away. You are both attacked by orcs. You are less than 5th level. Each turn, you and your companion are each attacked by orcs. On your turn you can choose for yourself *OR* your companion to defend themselves Not both. OR. So your wolf will sit there patiently letting the orcs kill it to death until you command it to defend its own life, by which you patiently sit there and allow the orcs to kill you. Not saying that's how GM ought to play it, but RAW says exactly that. It only acts when you tell it to, and when you tell it to, you can't do anything else until 5th level.
What is wrong with your wolf? Was it lobotomized? It doesn't know it should fight back when something is trying to kill it? Why can other normal wolves be able to do that, but yours cannot?
Your animal companion is 30 feet away. You are both attacked by orcs. You are less than 5th level. Each turn, you and your companion are each attacked by orcs. On your turn you can choose for yourself *OR* your companion to defend themselves Not both. OR. So your wolf will sit there patiently letting the orcs kill it to death until you command it to defend its own life, by which you patiently sit there and allow the orcs to kill you. Not saying that's how GM ought to play it, but RAW says exactly that. It only acts when you tell it to, and when you tell it to, you can't do anything else until 5th level.
What is wrong with your wolf? Was it lobotomized? It doesn't know it should fight back when something is trying to kill it? Why can other normal wolves be able to do that, but yours cannot?
MightyZehir
Explorer
Yes, this is probably the biggest problem with the beastmaster ranger, your companion's action is too restricted and makes no sense what so ever. I guess they were just not ready to do summoner/ companion classes.
Just imagine this:
Guenhwyvar sitting there yawning while Drizzt getting pummel to the ground by giants.
Last edited:
The Hitcher
Explorer
It's the easiest thing in the world to use the uncontrolled mount rules and just say that if the beast isn't instructed the DM will make it do whatever is logical for the situation. Likewise to use the animal companion rules for controlled mounts and say that the PC can have their mount attack in place of them if they want. Simple, consistent and takes less time to think of than coming onto the internet to complain.
Evenglare
Adventurer
This is completely incorrect, see text below.
The beast obeys your commands as best as it can. It
takes its turn on your initiative, though it doesn’t take an
action unless you command it to. On your turn, you can
verbally command the beast where to move (no action
required by you). You can use your action to verbally
command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge,
or Help action.
I don't know why you think that the animal companion would just sit there. You can tell it where to move, why are you not doing this?
MightyZehir
Explorer
Off course, there are always solutions that we can come up with, but why would we need to in the first place. It's one thing to leave room for DMs to do what they want, this isn't it. The DMs have to pick up the slack because the rules are lacking in this department.
The whole concept of the archetype is to fight and overcome challenges with your loyal companion which is also your friend. But the rules don't support the concept, you get a robot instead, not even a good one.
MightyZehir
Explorer
I think his point is mainly that you don't command it to do something other than moving as part of your action, it takes up your action before you get the extra attack feature, so both gets to move but only one of you would get to attack.
And like I mentioned, if I get into trouble( got stunned, drop to 0) the companion won't do anything to help, not distracting the enemy , attacking monsters, just nothing asides from moving.
Last edited:
And this opinion is presumably based on your extensive high-level playtesting of the class?
I haven't got my PHB yet, so I can't weigh in in any detail, but it does annoy when people declare rules too weak or too strong without having tried them. Whatever playtesting WotC did on the class, it was more than any of you have under your belts.
I think the problem is, that it is a class that seems built to fit in a certain game style that, in my opinion, most people just do not run.
The crux of the matter comes down to 'If you play a Fighter (Battle Master) and buy a Mastiff (25 gp in the price list) - how is the Mastiff handled during play?'
The rules seem to assume the highly trained war dog you bought will not do anything at all, because that is the default of what happens with a Beast Master if you do not spend your action making your animal companion attack. But realistically, I cant see most GMs playing it that way, they are going to let your trained attack dog do stuff in combat - and as soon as they do that, a 25 gp investment is *So Much Better* than the defining feature of the Beast Master sub class.
Similar Threads
