D&D 5E (2014) How might you fix the beastmaster's animal companion?

[Zaran]

This is a problem. Everything that the Ranger wants to do involves a bonus action.

Use Hunter Marks or Entangling Strike or any of the various arrow spells? Bonus action.
Use Shield Master feat? Bonus action
Dual Wielding? Bonus action.
Use a pet? Bonus action.

We are very quickly moving into the "Ranger is only good as an archer" territory, which is an issue with how good the Fighter is with a bow. Iconic rangers involve one of three weapon styles - the Aragorn (sword and board), the Drizzt (dual wielding), and the Archer. Both the Beastmaster and the Hunter subclasses need to allow all three styles to function. Two of those three styles require bonus actions for using the weapon, and the Archer needs bonus actions for the archery spells. I am beginning to really think that fixing the Beastmaster isn't enough. The entire class needs to be revamped.

Or turned into a vamp. Undead ranger... mmm.....


More seriously. The only way to fix the Beastmaster is to completely decouple it from the Ranger's action economy, then keep the damage from the animal companion roughly equal to the damage from the Hunter class. The Druid's and Conjurer's summons don't take up her action. The Necromancer's undead don't. Dominated monsters don't. The Chain Warlock's familiar kinda does, but only for the attack action, which is strangely decoupled from the familiar taking any other action, like the Help action.

The Beastmaster's rules are completely and utterly inconstant with how every other "pet class" operates. And that's always going to hurt it compared to everyone else.

I would make the Healing of the Beast come from the Ranger's own spell slots. I am of the opinion that Hunter Marks should be a thing for the Hunter class (hey! the name fits!), so the Beastmaster should be saving slots for being all Archery or healing the pet.

I don't think it's a problem. They already lose an action to have the companion attack. With my idea, they lose a bonus action. My idea gives them an extra attack that is more powerful than just dual wielding. If they have to give up this bonus action to cast a spell then oh well. they still get their main attack.

 

[Mephista]

I don't think it's a problem. They already lose an action to have the companion attack. With my idea, they lose a bonus action. My idea gives them an extra attack that is more powerful than just dual wielding. If they have to give up this bonus action to cast a spell then oh well. they still get their main attack.

The problem is that it makes dual wielding nonviable. And, as much as people mock Drizzt, two weapon fighting has become an iconic part of the class. You -should- be able to dual wield. As things stand now, its a trap choice. You are 100% better to go sword, shield, dualist, and use your bonus action for Hunter's Mark, another spell, companion attack, anything.

EDIT - And I'm not just talking about two weapons. Shield Master uses the bonus action for the shield - beastmaster prevents that. There's a ton of Archer spells that use the bonus action. Your way overloads the action economy of the class.

 

[Zaran]

If it's a big issue for you, make it either a bonus action or a replacement for a regular action like they have already.

 

[Mephista]

If it's a big issue for you, make it either a bonus action or a replacement for a regular action like they have already.

Or... I could do it the way I suggested, which allows all play styles to be valid. A land druid can summon a Beast that's just as strong as the ranger's pet, if not stronger, and doesn't sacrifice a single action of her own.

 

[Zaran]

Or... I could do it the way I suggested, which allows all play styles to be valid. A land druid can summon a Beast that's just as strong as the ranger's pet, if not stronger, and doesn't sacrifice a single action of her own.

Let's take your example of Drizzt, which one could argue isn't a beastmaster ranger since he is using an extra cool magical item, but let's use it anyway. He probably is high enough level to have 3 attacks for every attack action. He can easily use one of those attacks for his offhand weapon and still have his companion attack as a bonus action. The only thing my idea changes is at 3rd level a beastmaster doesn't have to give up their main attack. Do you really want to give a 3rd level beastmaster 3 attacks every round?

 

[jodyjohnson]

I think it needs an Unearthed Arcana article with options with a scale on how powerful you should make them depending on individual groups and campaigns.

If I'm at an Adventurer's League table I probably don't want powerful mounts, familiars, animal companions, undead minions, henchman, and a lot of summons. At a home game with maybe 2 or 3 players, I'm a lot more open to having secondary 'characters' that are a lot more powerful. At the other end, if I have 6 players in my home game I prefer less add-on characters.

UA articles can just flat out state that the standard rule is the weak end of the spectrum and give 'official' options for making them more impressive in play. Until then, I think groups can just house rule it which is all the UA options will end up being anyway.


For example, I could bring my mounted Necromancer with familiar, Animate Dead, and some summoning spells and dominate the playtime at an AL table if there weren't default limits on actions. However if I were the only player at a home game that might be a really interesting character.

 

[Mephista]

Its immaterial if Drizzt is a Beastmaster or not. I only brought him up as an example of a dual wielding Ranger* The points I'm making are:

1) Dual Wielding is part of the Ranger class identity. It requires use of a bonus action to employ.
2) Both the Archer and the Sword/Board styles of fighting also require a large amount Bonus Actions. As does the use of Entangling Strike.
3) Other classes with summons or other forms of pets don't lose any actions while in combat.

Requiring a use of a regular action, a bonus action, whatever for the pet gets in the way of the base class design. The messed up action economy is one the big reasons why Beastmaster is currently terrible choice. Under your rules, you would never get an option to swing an off hand weapon, use a shield bash, run a Hunter's Mark, use Entangling Strike, or use any Archer spells. That's huge.

And, so what if a 3rd level beastmaster had a third attack from pets, so long as the damage was consistent with the Hunter Ranger running a Hunter's Mark, as well as the average of other classes? The animal companion is a separate entity from the Ranger. It never benefit from his magical weapons, his hunter marks, or anything else, really. The damage of the animal companion is pretty static, not really subject to force multipliers. Easy enough to match a single attack at level 3.

It should be noted that Hoard Breaker and Giant Killer both provide third attacks as well. Colossus Slayer deals an extra 1d8 a turn, an average of 4.5 damage. The hawk deals one damage on a hit. The mastiff 4 damage. The panther 5. They seem pretty balanced so far.

* Even as a Hunter, two weapon fighting doesn't work right. The class as a whole has major issues that need to be addressed. The Beastmaster is just the most glaring part.

 

[Minigiant]

That's the crux of the issue.

At the 3rd level, a free action beast attack for a subclass is just straight overpowered.
At level 11, not so much and the beast is too squishy.

 

[Mephista]

That's the crux of the issue.

At the 3rd level, a free action beast attack for a subclass is just straight overpowered.
At level 11, not so much and the beast is too squishy.

It should be noted that Hoard Breaker and Giant Killer both provide third attacks as well. Colossus Slayer deals an extra 1d8 a turn, an average of 4.5 damage for the least powerful option of the Hunter class.

The hawk deals 1 damage on a hit. The mastiff 4 damage. The panther 5. +2 from proficency bonus, and half it for the average chance to hit. Meanwhile, the Colossus Slayer feature will trigger automatically, making it a given. So, 1.5/3/3.5 versus 4.5 extra dpr a turn.

They seem pretty balanced to me so far. I'm all ears for how that's overpowered. I'm seeing people react to the idea of "a third attack" being broken/wrong. Given the average damage we're talking, I'm not impressed. There's nothing "straight overpowered" about an extra 3 damage a turn.

 

[Minigiant]

Colussus Slayer adds damage to your attacks and requires the enemy to be damage.
HordeBreaker is situational and require clumped up enemies. Similar restrictions with Giant Killer.

The restriction of the beast is it is killable. A notable restriction but easily managed with feats and barding. Its a lot easier to abuse and easy for a DM to miss.