D&D 5E Interpreting "normal maximum" for Ranger's Companions

[Li Shenron]

...and before you all start throwing rocks at me, notice that I didn't say that the RAW implies that the animal companion has maximum HP equal to average maximum HP of a creature of its type, either.

Truly, the RAW says absolutely nothing:

"Its hit point maximum equals its normal maximum or four times your ranger level, whichever is higher."

So its fully-healed HP equal its normal fully-healed HP. But the latter is different depending on the individual. Unless the DM decides that all wolves in the world have the same HP, in which case also the pet has that amount. But if the DM decides that wolves have varying HP (e.g. roll 2d8+2, or the DM just makes up a number), then the player might be asked to roll as well, or the DM decides.

Which by the way, totally entitles you (the DM) to always decide for the statistical highest, if you want.

 

[Minigiant]

...and before you all start throwing rocks at me, notice that I didn't say that the RAW implies that the animal companion has maximum HP equal to average maximum HP of a creature of its type, either.

Truly, the RAW says absolutely nothing:

"Its hit point maximum equals its normal maximum or four times your ranger level, whichever is higher."

So its fully-healed HP equal its normal fully-healed HP. But the latter is different depending on the individual. Unless the DM decides that all wolves in the world have the same HP, in which case also the pet has that amount. But if the DM decides that wolves have varying HP (e.g. roll 2d8+2, or the DM just makes up a number), then the player might be asked to roll as well, or the DM decides.

Which by the way, totally entitles you (the DM) to always decide for the statistical highest, if you want.

That's what I said.

When I DM, I roll HP for every 4th monster or so of the same type in a group.

For example, a wolf pack of 10 wolves has 8 wolves with 11 HP, and alpha with max rolled hp of 18, and a omega with rolled HP.

If the beastmaster makes the alpha his companion, it's HP is 18 until the ranger hits 5th level.
If he takes the omega with 7 HP, then beast immediately goes to 12 HP due to the ritual.

 

[Mercule]

You are all wrong by the RAW, which is very clear:

"Its hit point maximum equals its normal maximum or four times your ranger leveI, whichever is higher."

Sadly the RAW is clearly talking about maximum HP i.e. "fully healed", and normal maximum cannot mean anything else than "normal HP of a fully healed creature". It doesn't mean "the maximum of its normal maximum".

Truly, the RAW says absolutely nothing:

"Its hit point maximum equals its normal maximum or four times your ranger level, whichever is higher."
...
Which by the way, totally entitles you (the DM) to always decide for the statistical highest, if you want.

So, which is it? Is it clear or does it say nothing? The tone of your first post, whether intentional or not, was pretty inflammatory. That seems especially off, given that you quoted me in giving explicit interpretation of the piece you say isn't addressed in the RAW. So, what was your point, again?

 

[Li Shenron]

So, which is it? Is it clear or does it say nothing? The tone of your first post, whether intentional or not, was pretty inflammatory.

Sorry about that

It is clear what it says, but it says nothing that is useful.

 

[Warbringer]

Sure glad the rules are written in plain English.

Ask your DM. The beast master is such a generally weak option I'd go with "it's hit dice aremaximized" at my table.

I think this is RAI.

 

[Gimul]

You are all wrong by the RAW, which is very clear:

"Its hit point maximum equals its normal maximum or four times your ranger leveI, whichever is higher."

Sadly the RAW is clearly talking about maximum HP i.e. "fully healed", and normal maximum cannot mean anything else than "normal HP of a fully healed creature". It doesn't mean "the maximum of its normal maximum".

Unfortunately the word maximum does not refer to the statistically highest possible value here, but just the fully-healed. Otherwise, if the second part did really referred to statistical highest possible value (of a creature of its type), then also the first part of the sentence "hit point maximum" would similarly mean the statistically highest possible value (of all animal companions of this type), which really tells you nothing about your own. Both terms mean the same thing, either way.

Whether this is fair is another matter, and the RAI could be different.

The question asked wasn't "what is RAW?". It was "how do you play", with an implied "and why?".

 

[Skyscraper]

[MENTION=1465]Li Shenron[/MENTION], I think your point is good and well taken. (I don't think you were being inflammatory, myself, but perhaps you could still word your opinion as an opinion, next time.)

Thanks for pointing out your interpretation.

 

[Zaran]

I wonder if so many people thought that it meant that the hit points were maximized that it has affected survey results. I have to agree that the when they talk about hit point maximum they intended for it to be what was rolled for the animal (or the normal average).

 

[jodyjohnson]

At Beastmaster Ranger level 3, there's a big difference between having a 32hp Giant Frog and a 18hp Giant Frog. Or a 24hp Panther and 13hp Panther. Of course the HP advantage goes away eventually.

Seems like it would muddy the feedback depending on which version you were running.

 

[Mercule]

Sorry about that

It is clear what it says, but it says nothing that is useful.

No worries.

I can agree with your concise summary, there.

My actual answer to the larger question posed is: My group doesn't really see the Beast Master as a function of Ranger (it's more Druid, with Rangers historically getting trickle-down), so no one is likely to play one. Add on that the general reports I've heard is that BM is somewhat under powered, and no one is likely to play one (even though we are far, far from power gamers). I'd house rule max (on the die) hit points, just because it might as well be interesting, if someone actually decides to play one. Even failing that, it makes no sense to call out that something has "hit point maximum equal to its normal maximum" if that normal maximum is just whatever was rolled on the dice, so the only possible reason for them to bother wording it in that (admittedly imprecise) way is if it's intended for them to have statistically maximum hit points, for their breed.

Again, it's not likely that I'll ever see one in play, so YMMV by quite a bit.