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

[Li Shenron]

You will be fine, but personally I have the feeling that the problem has been exaggerated and become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"It looks underpowered." -> "I am not going to play it." -> "Nobody plays it, that's the proof it's underpowered."

I won't believe it's underpowered until I have seen at least 2 of them in play, and they have shown to me that they are lacking.

As I explained in a former thread about it, even with the "shared attack actions" rule, the animal companion still grants the Ranger something more than without it:

- at levels 3-6 it provides minor combat aids (distractions, cover, opportunity attacks), plus out-of-combat aid (can help scouting, guarding, searching, tracking...)
- at levels 7-10 it also provides free advantage once per turn to attacks or other ability checks (via Help)
- at levels 11+ it also provides an additional attack per turn

I don't think the starting HP are a big deal, very soon your level x4 will be more than even the maximum possible for an animal of its kind, so I doubt that it will encourage people to play a Beastmaster, certainly not those who have already decided they hate the "shared attack actions" mechanics.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

And therein lies the rub... and is exactly how I feel about it too.

I have no idea whether the Beastmaster Ranger is underpowered, because I've yet to have a player choose to play one. And it's not enough that other players here on the boards say it is, because I'm pretty confident that the way the myriad of those people play the game is probably so far afield of the way my table is run that their opinions hold no real weight.

So I *can't* get all up in arms about the BM (or the Sharpshooter/GWM feats, the Sorcerer etc.) because until I see any of these so-called "underpowered" or "overpowered" things actually in action, I don't trust a thing any of these other players say. I'll certainly take their opinions into account... and keep a closer eye on these things should they ever come up in one of my games... but I just can't take any of the complaints seriously until they do. Because my players just don't play in the same way that it seems like some of the players here (and the tables of those players) do, and I'm almost certain I don't DM in the same way many of the players here on the boards do either.

 

[Li Shenron]

So I *can't* get all up in arms about the BM (or the Sharpshooter/GWM feats, the Sorcerer etc.) because until I see any of these so-called "underpowered" or "overpowered" things actually in action

Most of our complaints about the game do not really stem from playing the game, but from imagining playing the game. We are all math geniuses who delight in proving that the game cannot be played.

 

[jodyjohnson]

For comparison - Basic Rules companions and UA spirit companion

[sblock]

[/sblock]

Table with HP for companions with HD equal to Ranger Level.

[sblock]

[/sblock]

 

[seebs]

I was reading other bits, and I found something I think is compelling. Look at the 6th level bonus for necromancer wizards (page 119): "The creature's hit point maximum is increased by an amount equal to your wizard level."

If the "maximum" merely represented the highest amount you could roll for hit points, this would be nonsensical. The "maximum" is the individual creature's hit point total.