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

[akr71]

At my Table we have the pets run by the DM unless specifically commanded to do something by its master. Its a complete bust that a trained animal would just sit there and do nothing unless it was told to when it can see that not only his master put his travailing companions are getting attacked especially a pack animal(lets face it 99% of beast companions are wolves and the other 1% are panthers) they would totally get stuck in there. The dm does quite a good job of running it tbh makes just enough mistakes to make it seem like an animal and that giving it a command is worth your action.

Iv all so seen it moved as a bonus action to command it (the pet got buffed in this game and added prof+ranger level to attack damage.)

Both of these where fine i feel that at higher levels adding ranger level will get out of hand real fast but the game stopped at lvl 7ish

This is similar to how I handle it at my table. The pet will continue to do what it was last commanded to do unless it is gravely injured (<1/4 max HP). Additionally, during melee, if the ranger does not spend an action to command the pet to attack, the following round the pet attacks the same target as the ranger.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

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

If I'm understanding your question (and I'm not sure that I am), I don't really see it as meaningfully different. A Beast Master ability to grant extra actions to its pet (sh/w)ould function almost exactly like the Battle Master granting extra attacks to its ally.

 

[Pauln6]

I think the beast should act in the same way as any other trained animal when not being commanded so it will defend its master where appropriate, flee if wounded or afraid etc. If commanded to attack or do something else, it will do so until its natural instincts take over e.g. wounded or afraid unless commanded to continue again.

Higher dpr when spread out over the adventuring day should be mitigated by the fact that it goes down again if the animal is killed or retreats.

So the uncaring ranger who commands his wounded pet to keep attacking must use his action to do so. Seems reasonable to me.

 

[discosoc]

That is the way the PHB ranger makes sense to me. Take the action to start the beast doing something...they keep doing it until you tell them not to or they're done...you [the ranger] can do whatever you want until you need to spend time to change their action./QUOTE]

Problem is, that's not how the PHB words it. As stated : "It takes its turn on your initiative, although it doesn't take an action unless you command it to." It then goes on to mention how you can -- for free -- command it to move, or command it to do other stuff like attack as your action.

I have a feeling a lot of people houserule that last part out, because "it makes sense" to them as well, but it's very much a houserule.

 

[ad_hoc]

I think if you want DPR you should go Hunter. Beast Master gives the ranger a ton of extra staying power in having another body in the fight as well as great exploration abilities.

I think the problem lies not in having not enough attacks, but on the constraints of the beast itself. Having a minimum base HP for example encourages people to pick beasts that have a low natural HP so they get the biggest boost from it. The restriction of both medium and 1/4 CR seems to be a bit much. Would a Giant Owl be game breaking? (with a passive perception of 20...maybe). Of course upping the CR limit to 1/2 would push people away from wolves which is what people like.

It's a tricky thing to manage.

I think Hunter should be for DPR and Beast Master should be for utility.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Would a Giant Owl be game breaking?

I hope not, since you can simply befriend one and bring him along (the even understand Common). Heck, have the whole party befriend giant owls (or pay them in some form) for the extra utility. Therein lies the problem with the Beast Master design.