D&D 5E In Defense of the Beastmaster

[jimmyjimjam]

But pets *ARE* targeted. Any AOE (Fireball, breath weapon, etc) will affect them. Moreover, there is a better than 50% chance the pet will auto-die when hit by a fireball of equivilent level.

Lel 5 wolf w/ 20 hp has +2 Dex save vs. a 8d6 DC 14 fireball has a <40% chance of surviving it. The GM is targeting the wolf whenever an AOE goes off in its vicinity.

Question: do pets "have" to be right next to the Beastmaster every combat? Is there function purely a combat one, absorbing damage or attacking?

 

[Syntallah]

Yeah this is very unfortunate. Letting the beast add prof bonus to saves would help a lot. Alas. I would allow the more generous reading for a pet at my table.

I plan on taking a page as it were from 3E: Animal types in that edition had 'good' Fort and Refl saves. So, I will allow the 5E animal companion to have the Master's proficiency in Con and Dex saves.

 

[Juriel]

Question: do pets "have" to be right next to the Beastmaster every combat? Is there function purely a combat one, absorbing damage or attacking?

By the rules, yes, because they don't even move without the Ranger shouting at them.

Which means that even in combat, an area of silence makes the pet completely lost.

 

[jimmyjimjam]

By the rules, yes, because they don't even move without the Ranger shouting at them.

Which means that even in combat, an area of silence makes the pet completely lost.

So RAW, the pet stands frozen unless directed otherwise?

 

[Juriel]

So RAW, the pet stands frozen unless directed otherwise?

'Beast takes its turn on your initiative, though it doesn't take an action unless you command it to. On your turn, you can verbally command the beast where to move (no action required by you).'

Yeah.

 

[SilverfireSage]

So RAW, the pet stands frozen unless directed otherwise?

It doesn't say so in as many words. The interpretation most people responding seem to favor is that the beast becomes a robot once it becomes your companion, but the rules only say "On your turn, you can (emphasis mine) verbally command the beast where to move (no action required by you)." I take this as, you can order it, but if you don't it moves where it wants. This also seems to be Mearle's interpretation. Remember, moving is not an action, so in the part "it doesn't take an action unless you command it to." it can still move without being commanded and still be RAW.

 

[Juriel]

Ah. I read it as 'the beast does not act', rather than 'the beast takes no ACTION SPECIFIC TYPES OF RULES TERMS'.

If it can still move, that is... well, still quite useless, but at least the Rogue can get a Sneak Attack from its presence?

 

[jimmyjimjam]

Ah. I read it as 'the beast does not act', rather than 'the beast takes no ACTION SPECIFIC TYPES OF RULES TERMS'.

If it can still move, that is... well, still quite useless, but at least the Rogue can get a Sneak Attack from its presence?

You couldn't, say, have the pet safely off the battlefield and signal it onto the battlefield once the coast was clear or almost clear with a whistle or somesuch?

 

[Uchawi]

It would be great if they had some optional rules in the monster manual or even the dm guide to offer advice on how to switch AC for hit points, or similar monster defenses or abilities. So you can have a high AC pet, but the hit points are drastically reduced. But the problem overall is the beastmaster is a 2 character build, i.e. ranger and pet, so the balancing act it going to be a pita.

 

[Ruzak]

... But the problem overall is the beastmaster is a 2 character build, i.e. ranger and pet, so the balancing act it going to be a pita.

I think this is the reason I favor a more independent ACo; we have always treated them more like characters in themselves.
Balance wasn't an issue, since of course the ranger and his wolf were stronger than a single other character.