D&D 5E Beastmaster's animal companion: can it survive for 2 rounds?

[jadrax]

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.

I agree that using the 'animal companion rules for controlled mounts' is a much better option than using the rules from the Animal Companion Beast Master feature.

But the fact that you are much better off ignoring the class feature and using the rules available to everyone else instead, does kind of highlight how weak the class feature is.

 

[MightyZehir]

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 don't even care about the numbers, it's a problem of rules not supporting the concept.

Why would it take up your whole action to yell 'attack' to your companion?

Why wouldn't your faithful companion not come to your aid when you need it.

 

[Evenglare]

It also says that it obeys your commands as best it can. This, to me, implies that the best actually does have a sense of self awareness and can obviously act for itself on it's own behalf if something bad were to arise (you getting stunned etc etc). I'm really intrigued that people actually think that since the book doesn't expressly state what the wolf should do, is that it would stay there like a robot and just be completely incapable of doing anything for itself. I assume a baseline common knowledge when I approach stuff like this so I never even considered this a problem until I saw this thread. Does a rule really need to be included for this? Is there ANY player or DM that would honestly let the dog just sit there doing nothing?? I can't even imagine what kind of people would actually play like this. I'll admit that there is no clear justification, but given the 2 options (sitting there with no brain letting things hit it, or letting the companion actually think for itself in situations where the player is not able to give actions) it seems like the latter is the obvious answer.

 

[Evenglare]

I don't even care about the numbers, it's a problem of rules not supporting the concept.

Why would it take up your whole action to yell 'attack' to your companion?

Why wouldn't your faithful companion not come to your aid when you need it.

Probably not. It would seem that you and your companion are still feeling each other out. You get the extra/simultaneous attack later which seems to me like you are working better as partners. The rules seem to support actual growth of the relationship. I ... I can't be the only one who has thought this, surely.

 

[jadrax]

I'm really intrigued that people actually think that since the book doesn't expressly state what the wolf should do, is that it would stay there like a robot and just be completely incapable of doing anything for itself. I assume a baseline common knowledge when I approach stuff like this so I never even considered this a problem until I saw this thread. Does a rule really need to be included for this? Is there ANY player or DM that would honestly let the dog just sit there doing nothing?? I can't even imagine what kind of people would actually play like this. I'll admit that there is no clear justification, but given the 2 options (sitting there with no brain letting things hit it, or letting the companion actually think for itself in situations where the player is not able to give actions) it seems like the latter is the obvious answer.

The problem is not that people are assuming the companion will not do anything, the problem is that the rules actually say the companion will not do anything.
'It takes its turn on your initiative, though it doesn’t take an action unless you command it to.'
'You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help action.'

 

[The Hitcher]

I agree that using the 'animal companion rules for controlled mounts' is a much better option than using the rules from the Animal Companion Beast Master feature.

But the fact that you are much better off ignoring the class feature and using the rules available to everyone else instead, does kind of highlight how weak the class feature is.

Those rules are available to everyone else who is riding a mount. The Ranger gets to do the same thing, but they do it remotely, get more choice of animals, and their animal gets upgraded over time.

I agree that the rule is poorly written. But it's an easy fix that I don't think necessitates a new whinge-thread every few days.

 

[Juriel]

Poisonous Snake: +5th, 1 damage, DC10 Con save for 2d4 (or half).

I'm not sure where you got that 3d6 thing...? Anyway, with the +5 to hit, I'd figure about 5 or 6 would hit PC's of median AC (12 to 15), so grand total is between 10 and 54 damage (so, what, call it 32 average?). The snakes only have 2hp each, and we are talking 5th level guys here...so those snakes will likely be dead in one, maybe two rounds (area spell, general attacks, flasks of oil, etc). I don't think I'd worry about anything "overpowerful" in that spell...

Missed a word there. The word being 'giant'.

Oh look, I misremembered, the snake is +6 to hit, not just +4.

 

[MightyZehir]

It also says that it obeys your commands as best it can. This, to me, implies that the best actually does have a sense of self awareness and can obviously act for itself on it's own behalf if something bad were to arise (you getting stunned etc etc). I'm really intrigued that people actually think that since the book doesn't expressly state what the wolf should do, is that it would stay there like a robot and just be completely incapable of doing anything for itself. I assume a baseline common knowledge when I approach stuff like this so I never even considered this a problem until I saw this thread. Does a rule really need to be included for this? Is there ANY player or DM that would honestly let the dog just sit there doing nothing?? I can't even imagine what kind of people would actually play like this. I'll admit that there is no clear justification, but given the 2 options (sitting there with no brain letting things hit it, or letting the companion actually think for itself in situations where the player is not able to give actions) it seems like the latter is the obvious answer.

Like I said, we 'll definitely make it work during play, but that doesn't excuse the fact these rules are poorly written. If we let common sense be the judge, wouldn't it make more sense for the attack command be part of his action and not his whole action before level 5?

If the rules are not good enough to support the concept, then it is important to point it out, so the designers can hear our feedback and fix it.

After all, this is the goal of the new edition.

 

[MightyZehir]

Probably not. It would seem that you and your companion are still feeling each other out. You get the extra/simultaneous attack later which seems to me like you are working better as partners. The rules seem to support actual growth of the relationship. I ... I can't be the only one who has thought this, surely.

And the growth of the relationship ends when you are stunned or drop to 0 because then the companion doesn't know you anymore. I guess the monsters do a good work of rearranging your facial features

 

[Evenglare]

Like I said, we 'll definitely make it work during play, but that doesn't excuse the fact these rules are poorly written. If we let common sense be the judge, wouldn't it make more sense for the attack command be part of his action and not his whole action before level 5?

If the rules are not good enough to support the concept, then it is important to point it out, so the designers can hear our feedback and fix it.

After all, this is the goal of the new edition.

Then it seems that the new edition has failed on this front colossally yes? If you want the designers to see it why discuss it here? Why not on the wizards boards or tweet mike mearls or email them. Surely all of those are much better options for letting the designers see the problem rather than the off chance that they check these boards. I know they do occasionally but why not go directly to the source? Everyone here has clearly made the argument. It's a terrible class, there's not much more we can do in this thread I think.