D&D 5E Did anyone try beastmaster with no action for beast attack?

[Eric V]

Not to bump my own question just for attention, but I'm genuinely curious what the people who would let the ranger direct the beast using a bonus action would do to replace the level 7 feature of the beastmaster subclass...

 

[Azurewraith]

Not to bump my own question just for attention, but I'm genuinely curious what the people who would let the ranger direct the beast using a bonus action would do to replace the level 7 feature of the beastmaster subclass...

Hmmmm Maybe give the beast a bonus action it can use to dodge? or allow the beast to attack again for each attack the ranger gives up

 

[Mephista]

Would command as a bonus action work? (I realize its overpowered compared to twf...)

EVERYTHING is overpowered compared to TWFing. Duel wielding is badly implemented in this game as a style, and often quoted as a trap option. I'm pondering on making a feat that doesn't make it so terrible

Also, isn't the issue also that most animal companions are very fragile? Would upping its hp help?

Its not a matter of its HP being low, its a matter of what happens if it drops to zero, and no natural HD to recover.

 

[Remathilis]

EVERYTHING is overpowered compared to TWFing. Duel wielding is badly implemented in this game as a style, and often quoted as a trap option. I'm pondering on making a feat that doesn't make it so terrible

Its not a matter of its HP being low, its a matter of what happens if it drops to zero, and no natural HD to recover.

How does ranger pet as bonus action attack stack up against other bonus actions?

Secondly, what about letting pets get the same healing as a ranger when he spends a HD? (Ie, the HD heals both ranger and pet)?

 

[steeldragons]

I'd say they split it, and/or the ranger can decide how much of their HD to devote to the animal. You want to have two characters, your HD have to pay for two characters, not be twice as effective as everyone else's HD.

 

[Mephista]

The pet does decent damage. At level 3, it deals an average of 7 with an attack, with a chance of somethign extra. That's really not too bad at level 3. It matches the damage from a bonus-action attack as well as the damage from two hits while using Hunter's Marks. That's assuming we're talking about different options while being a Beastmaster. The Hunter does better damage thanks to Hunter's Prey options at level 3. This becomes less remarkable as we level up to 10, and start finding magic items, get feats that increase damage. A crossbow Expert with a +1 weapon would be dealing slightly more damage than the pet. Lets not get into a Crossbow Expert with Sharpshooter plus the damage from something like Collosus Slayer. The magic weapon also has a benefit of bypassing a lot of damage reduction, whereas the pet does not.

At level 11, the pet gets a significant jump in power - two attacks from the pet on top of the two from your base class. This doubles its attacks as well as potential damage output. However, the number of spells we can use hasn't gone down. Hunter Marks, Ensnaring Strikes, Lightning Arrow. If anything,we can use more of them, and each does more damage than the pet's attack. Yes, they're limited in number, but they're great utility and battlefield control. Its a hard call at this point, since we're talking limited resource and situational abilities. If we assume Hunter Marks, then we've the Beastmaster coming ahead with a extra 5 damage a turn compared to a Hunter. However, at this point, we're running into more and more creatures with resistances to mundane attacks, so that lowers the companion's output significantly. As well, we won't be using Hunter's Marks constantly, as we have access to Ranger-y AoEs, further skewing the data.

Swift Quiver blows the pet out of the water at level 17.


As for healing? I think that woiuld be fine, personally.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

We've mostly sort of glossed over an important distinction in this discussion, but I think it would be good to be clear about what angle we are coming from on it. The question being whether or not it is assumed that other players can/will have normal pets (not class features). It makes a huge difference in how you handle the Beast Master.

If anyone can have a pet, then you need to run the games from the baseline of how you decide that that works (ignoring the ranger for the moment). Only then can you look at it and ask, "what makes the Beast Master special?" Since his subclass is all based around having a pet, his pet should be significantly more effective than another character's pet. And while it isn't strictly required, suspension of disbelief is also better served if the Beast Master's pet doesn't lose anything (no standing around stupid unless commanded)--he only gains benefits. You basically have a situation where PC(1.5) + Pet(0.5) = 2, and Beast Master(1) + Pet(1) = 2. (The shift of the arbitrary 0.5 is meant to represent the subclass portion of the character being invested in his pet.) So you essentially have to buff the Beast Master somehow.

If, on the other hand, you decide that the baseline for pets is that they are class features in your games, then you have this situation instead: PC(1) = 1, and Beast Master(0.8) + Pet(0.2) = 1. (All numbers arbitrary.) In that situation, either you straight up forbid PCs from having pets without class features, or you have to decide how pets that aren't class features actually work and you have to make sure that they aren't competing with the Beast Master's pet. So you can't say something like: PC(1) + Pet(0.1) = 1.1, and Beast Master(0.8) + Pet(0.2) = 1. What's the point of being a Beast Master? So either forbid PCs from having pets that aren't class-features, or you essentially have to buff the Beast Master somehow.

I suppose this is a third solution, for those who want it. The baseline can be that pets are a liability. Only by having a class feature can you have a pet be on par with other PCs. So it's PC(1) = 1; PC(1) + Pet (-0.2) = 0.8; Beast Master(0.8) + Pet (0.2) = 1.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That's a useful analysis, [MENTION=6677017]Sword of Spirit[/MENTION], and helps inform my idea that the beastmaster is a bit of an odd duck out - pets shouldn't be reserved for one particular subclass (that you lock in at level 3 and have to spend the next 17 levels in). Let ANY ranger have a panther companion, ANY paladin have a pegasus mount, ANY fighter have her squire to follow her around, ANY bard to get a groupie/bodyguard...the question should be more about how to account for these creatures for any PC, rather than trying to shove them all into subclass positions (where, if the Beastmaster is anything to go by, quarters are a little cramped).

 

[Sword of Spirit]

That's a useful analysis, [MENTION=6677017]Sword of Spirit[/MENTION], and helps inform my idea that the beastmaster is a bit of an odd duck out - pets shouldn't be reserved for one particular subclass (that you lock in at level 3 and have to spend the next 17 levels in). Let ANY ranger have a panther companion, ANY paladin have a pegasus mount, ANY fighter have her squire to follow her around, ANY bard to get a groupie/bodyguard...the question should be more about how to account for these creatures for any PC, rather than trying to shove them all into subclass positions (where, if the Beastmaster is anything to go by, quarters are a little cramped).

My suggestion is actually to not mechanically account for them at all. It's all about stuff that happens in the interaction tier of the game. Maybe the ranger gets knighted and gets a squire, the fighter plays the lute and gets fans to follow him around, etc. If that means someone else is there with you in battle sometimes, that doesn't make it a class ability.

That said, I have no problem with classes having special abilities (that are accounted for in their class design) allowing them to potentially have improved companions of some sort. My suggestion for the Beast Master is that the actions a ranger can give his companion by giving up his own should be used as extra actions beyond what the beast can already do. Anyone can have a dog--but the beast master can make his dog better.

 

[I'm A Banana]

My suggestion is actually to not mechanically account for them at all. It's all about stuff that happens in the interaction tier of the game. Maybe the ranger gets knighted and gets a squire, the fighter plays the lute and gets fans to follow him around, etc. If that means someone else is there with you in battle sometimes, that doesn't make it a class ability.

Yeah, I find myself in full agreement. A beast companion isn't a class feature, it's something handled at a different level.

That said, I have no problem with classes having special abilities (that are accounted for in their class design) allowing them to potentially have improved companions of some sort. My suggestion for the Beast Master is that the actions a ranger can give his companion by giving up his own should be used as extra actions beyond what the beast can already do. Anyone can have a dog--but the beast master can make his dog better.

How do you see that as being distinct from battlemaster/cleric/bard/etc. buffs?