Chocolategravy
First Post
Even if the rules say a 20 pound bird can carry over 100 pounds, I hope most DMs wouldn't allow anything as ludicrous as a 30 pounds + gear of halfling to ride it.
D&D 5E In Defense of the Beastmaster
BASHMAN
Basic Action Games
Ah, now the GM has fallen into our trap! By employing common sense and ignoring RAW in this instance, he should do the same thing when it comes to a pet sitting there and doing nothing while being attacked...
When the DM can explain how a 60-foot dragon takes off from a standing start, we can talk about my vulture mount.
And if the answer is "magic"--rangers are a spellcasting class, and their animal companions are substantially enhanced compared to regular animals of their type. Magic right back atcha.
(Somewhat less flippant: I would argue that the "vulture" in the rules is clearly not a regular vulture. It's a full size category larger than an eagle, on par with a pteranodon! It's a monster bird to start with, and then on top of that it's beefed up by being an animal companion. This is not a 20-pound condor, this is a 90-pound teratorn.)
Last edited:
jimmyjimjam
First Post
Pretty sure the DM can ban your vulture without much of a problem, without bringing dragons or anything else into his justification for doing so.
Pretty sure if I'm a player, the DM is running a short campaign and will soon become a player in a longer campaign arc run by me, and his chances of getting the DM hat back in future will be strongly affected by whether he's reasonable and consistent in his rulings. Realistic aerodynamics for flying monsters is a dangerous road for any DM to start down.
(If he wants to house-rule that vultures are Small-sized, I won't complain about that, and in fact would likely do the same myself. It's bizarre that vultures are a size category larger than eagles. But if vultures are Medium, they should be able to carry Small-sized riders.)
Last edited:
Snapdragyn
Explorer
This is what I'm doing with my Forest Gnome ranger (Gnomes: The Other Small Meat... er, Race!). 'Tavi - yum-yum!' *CRUNCH* Dead kobold.
Of course, some DMs are going to raise a stink when they look at the mounted combat rules, which say that a 'controlled mount' can only Dash, Dodge, or Disengage - not attack. Certainly pointing to the ranger's ACo rules as a case of 'Specific Trumps General' seems reasonable, but I doubt every DM is going to go for it unless we get an official Word From WotC.
Chocolategravy
First Post
That would be a very well trained animal. It should do something when attacked... run away like most animals do. If the DM used common sense on the beastmaster class, it would be to say you can't play the beastmater class. Finding a wild flying snake and training it to die for you, distinguish friend from foe and respond to verbal commands overnight makes no more sense than riding a vulture really.
GameDoc
Explorer
Maybe it's supposed to be on par with a California condor?
Xeviat
Hero
"Add your proficiency bonus to the beast's AC, attack rolls, and damage rolls, as well as to any saving throws and skills it is proficient in": reasons we need oxford comma rules. As no beasts are proficient in any saving throws, I question why that's there if we are to interpret the "it is proficient in" clause to apply to both saving throws and skills. Mind you, that's how I read it, but not how I want to read it.
Beast Masters are okay, it's just that they don't feel right. They aren't presented right either, with having the beasts hidden away in the Monster Manual instead of right there in the class entry to show you how good they are. You can have something like a wolf getting prone rider saves for you, or you can have something like a giant poisonous snake dealing tons of damage. At levels 3 to 4, you're stuck with you attacking or the beast attacking, but a giant poisonous snake attacks better than a Hunter with colossus slayer at 3rd level.
I suggest letting the companion act like a chain warlock's familiar; it gets an action, but it can only use that action to attack if the ranger gives up one of their attacks. This would allow either the beast to attack or the ranger to attack with the beast helping; auto help is rather comparable to the hunter's colossus slayer in damage averages.
This avoids the issue of the companion not being able to dash with the ranger and keep up when they need to flee.
Also, yes, the companion does need proficiency bonus to saves; but I've house ruled proficiency bonus to all saves anyway (and swapped out save proficiency for a 4E style class save bonus). Evasion for the beast would be nice, maybe at level 7, and different HP calculation (probably using con bonus so low AC companions have more HP).
Beast Masters are okay, it's just that they don't feel right. They aren't presented right either, with having the beasts hidden away in the Monster Manual instead of right there in the class entry to show you how good they are. You can have something like a wolf getting prone rider saves for you, or you can have something like a giant poisonous snake dealing tons of damage. At levels 3 to 4, you're stuck with you attacking or the beast attacking, but a giant poisonous snake attacks better than a Hunter with colossus slayer at 3rd level.
I suggest letting the companion act like a chain warlock's familiar; it gets an action, but it can only use that action to attack if the ranger gives up one of their attacks. This would allow either the beast to attack or the ranger to attack with the beast helping; auto help is rather comparable to the hunter's colossus slayer in damage averages.
This avoids the issue of the companion not being able to dash with the ranger and keep up when they need to flee.
Also, yes, the companion does need proficiency bonus to saves; but I've house ruled proficiency bonus to all saves anyway (and swapped out save proficiency for a 4E style class save bonus). Evasion for the beast would be nice, maybe at level 7, and different HP calculation (probably using con bonus so low AC companions have more HP).
