D&D 5E Favored Enemy needs a simple Damage +2

[Shadowdweller00]

Let me see here: Blindsight, long-range darkvision, and/or keen sense (co-opt via Beast Sense), higher damage and higher accuracy attacks than the ranger likely has themself without Sharpshooter/GWF, an EXTRA attack (lvl 11 ability), grapple or restrain on hit attacks (Giant Crab/Giant Frog companions) and therefore easy forced movement, potential albeit low DC prone on-hit attacks (e.g wolf), advantage on melee attacks for a bonus action (lvl 7 ability - help), extra hit points by virtue of another target.

Have not seen a Beastmaster in action, but seems to me that the subclass has PLENTY going for it.

 

[Minigiant]

If you are okay with having to remove your main class feature from harm every time combat I'd imminent, I suspect you are in a tiny minority.

If the Beastmaster could have several animal companions, you'd have a point. Then you could have your tiny friends do useful scouting etc, but sayin thatmany people wanted a battle buddy is an understatement.

Especially with the summoning etc spells in play.

This thread is strange. People defending the subclass never provide a complete answer to the complaints, only pick individual pieces where an isolated reply sounds reasonable. Or bury deep into meaningless numbers.

Look, first off, it isn't the individual comparison to steeds, bard spells, ad nauseam that is the issue.

It's not even the sum of all these niggles.

The problem is that none of you have refuted the claim Beastmaster is the Bard of this edition. Not only does it never shine, it's main attraction is gimped in such artificial ways all fun is sucked out of it.

The problem is that people want people want a MMO style battle budy who can sit in the middle of battle.

The strength of the beastmaster is using the beast's uniqueness.

FLYING SNAKE

• Fly and Swim speed
• can flyby with 60ft speed
• Blindsight for spying
• deals poison damage
• AC 14 + ranger's proficiency

GIANT POISONOUS SNAKE

• Swim speed
• Skilled in Reception for keeping watch, searching, and tracking
• Blindsight for Spying
• Good damage
• Deals poison damage
• AC 14 + ranger prof
• INFINITE MILKABLE POISON

GIANT CRAB

• Skilled in Stealth
• Swim speed and amphibious
• Blindsight for spying
• AC 15 + ranger prof
• Auto grapples on hit

MASTIFF

• A small PC can ride them into battle and defend it with Mounted Combatant Feat
• Keen hearing and Senses
• Auto trip attempt on hit

MULE

• A PC can ride them into battle and defend it with Mounted Combatant Feat
• Sure footed

You have to use the beast's speed, skills, features, and senses to justify the subclass. It's still weak but not useless. The beast however will however not be a MMO pet.

 

[Zaran]

I disagree, it says the hit points are its "normal maximum" not its "normal average".

This was asked of Rodney Thompson

@wotc_rodney Ranger gets Beast Companion Wolf @ 3rd. How many hp does it have?
Does ranger Prof bonus add to all 6 saves?

This is his reply

Rodney Thompson ‏@wotc_rodney · 4m4 minutes ago
It would have 12 hit points (since 4 x 3 is more than its normal 11).

Rodney Thompson ‏@wotc_rodney ·
And you add your proficiency bonus only to the saving throws that it is already proficient in. In the wolf's case, none.

They use that term "maximum" to mean undamaged. If you look at their character sheets you have a maximum hit point field as well. It doesn't mean the "maximum possible hit points you can roll". If the companions hit points is to be maxed, his answer would have been 18 hp.

 

[CapnZapp]

The problem is that people want people want a MMO style battle budy who can sit in the middle of battle.

No.

The problem, at least here and now, is that you take it upon yourself to define people's wishes as bad somehow, and to define Wotc failure to deliver what people find fun as something okay and reasonable.

As I said, if the class allowed you to have a snake and a donkey IN ADDITION TO a badass fearsome beast, it would be okay.

But dnd and fantasy literature is filled with wolf, bear and tiger companions.

I won't have you make it out to be okay to have those options to be severely gimped.

And choosing animals simply based on their secondary characteristics, such as snake poison, is in itself broken as well as a symptom that "ordinary" beasts are underpowered.

People want iconic animals such as wolves. You give them snakes and... donkeys!? Really?

 

[Minigiant]

No.

The problem, at least here and now, is that you take it upon yourself to define people's wishes as bad somehow, and to define Wotc failure to deliver what people find fun as something okay and reasonable.

As I said, if the class allowed you to have a snake and a donkey IN ADDITION TO a badass fearsome beast, it would be okay.

But dnd and fantasy literature is filled with wolf, bear and tiger companions.

I won't have you make it out to be okay to have those options to be severely gimped.

And choosing animals simply based on their secondary characteristics, such as snake poison, is in itself broken as well as a symptom that "ordinary" beasts are underpowered.

People want iconic animals such as wolves. You give them snakes and... donkeys!? Really?

Wolves and panthers are great scots and trackers.

Yes, The Beast Master's Animal Companion is weak. It should have be a better combatant. More HP, better saves, and maybe another feature like evasion. But, the Beast Master's Animal Companion is not useless or horrible. It took a bit of time for people to figure out the nuances. The pet has many uses.

But some things are justified.

Giving a combat pet a full set of actions was proven as bad game design in previous editions. It works in movies and books. It works in video games as the computer does the math and computation. It doesn't work at a table as it drags down the game. Such a thing could not be the default.

Giving a combat pet the full stat line up as a PC was proven as bad game design in previous editions. Sure, you don't want your pet to die but you don't want him a better warrior than the other warrior PCs played by human friends. An since the ranger is a warrior, you'd have 2 full powered warriors in one PC.

Making favored enemy was proven as bad game design in previous editions. It forces the DM's hand, makes PC effectiveness not in the player's control, and imposes additional mandates on the whole game just to be fair.

WOTC's didn't make a perfect ranger. I'll give the a B- or C+ on design. But it's the best ranger D&D ever had. Better than all the Fs of the past. All the idea's were good but the numbers are off (spells known, number of FE/FT, companion HP). But overall, the 5th edition ranger actually does what the description says. And after years of the rangers not actually being rangers, I don't fault people for nothing knowing what the ranger is and disappointed due to understanding.

Some numbers are off though. But at least it wasn't poorly designed too.

 

[CapnZapp]

But... Do you find it fun?

 

[Minigiant]

But... Do you find it fun?

Yup.
I had to figure out the class worked first. Some things are off but I find it fun.
The 3rd edition ranger sucked and I got it to work and had fun with that mess. Wands of CLW, potions chugging pets, and in 3.0 my ranger had 14 Intelligence.


It was like a video game I played years ago: MAG. MAG was a team based first person shooter. The catch was, shooting people didn't win you games. You could have fun shooting people. You could get a high kill/death ratio and should off your ratio by sniping. But if you have fun by helping your team win, you had to stop shooting. You had to coordinate with allies, heal allies, and sometimes get shot. You even gained more XP this way too, so people who loved leveling had to stop shooting too.
You leveled up sooooooo slooooow with just kills. So new snipers would get frustrated with their crap XP. But the expert snipers didn't camp and snipe.

 

[SkidAce]

Making favored enemy was proven as bad game design in previous editions. It forces the DM's hand, makes PC effectiveness not in the player's control, and imposes additional mandates on the whole game just to be fair.

I don't agree with this.

Its no different than any other facet of a PC. The wizard has a pirate background and would like nautical adventures, he's specialized in air and water.. The cleric wants to follow in the footsteps of Celestian and travel the cosmos, takes a lot of gate type spells. The rogue is a wannabe ninja.

If I put flying enemies in the game and the PCs have limited ranged capability, I have made "PC effectiveness not in the player's control" in a similar fashion.

That's the DM's job, keep it balanced and moving mechanical and story bits in and out of focus. Sharing the spotlight of the characters around fairly.


My groups ranger wants to hunt ogres. So even without favored enemy, there are going to be ogre hunting adventures. Is that forcing the DM's hand?

I suggests not, and do not concur that "favored enemy was proven as bad game design in previous editions", YMMV, obviously.






P.S. I gave the ranger class expanded crit range (19-20) versus favored enemy as my solution.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't agree with this.

Its no different than any other facet of a PC. The wizard has a pirate background and would like nautical adventures, he's specialized in air and water.. The cleric wants to follow in the footsteps of Celestian and travel the cosmos, takes a lot of gate type spells. The rogue is a wannabe ninja.

If I put flying enemies in the game and the PCs have limited ranged capability, I have made "PC effectiveness not in the player's control" in a similar fashion.

That's the DM's job, keep it balanced and moving mechanical and story bits in and out of focus. Sharing the spotlight of the characters around fairly.


My groups ranger wants to hunt ogres. So even without favored enemy, there are going to be ogre hunting adventures. Is that forcing the DM's hand?

I suggests not, and do not concur that "favored enemy was proven as bad game design in previous editions", YMMV, obviously.






P.S. I gave the ranger class expanded crit range (19-20) versus favored enemy as my solution.

My point is that the design of the rangers forced restrictions and mandates on the game, not the DM nor player.

The difference is
"We are playing a game where the enemies are orcs"
"We are playing a naval game. Dont create heavy armor users"
"We are playing Dark Sun. No paladins"

and
"John is a ranger. Now I have to stick orcs or gnoll or giants in every 4th fight."
"Beth is a cleric. Gotta chuck undead in every 6th fight or ban Divine Meta Magic feats"
"Bob's a rogue. Gotta scrap that necromancy arc."

The group should have a base assumption and not dramatically have to change based on classes chosen.

 

[Stalker Comic]

P.S. I gave the ranger class expanded crit range (19-20) versus favored enemy as my solution.

Great idea.