There are no "5 foot step" rules in this game. The Snake attacks from 10ft away and withdraws. If a foe follows, they draw an attack of opportunity from an even deadlier and closer foe. The snake has a 30' move. The game is well adjusted for this sort of tactic - after all there is an entire Rogue type of strategy built around it. It's the purpose of reach. Of course it's not perfect - NO strategy is ever perfect. But, it's pretty darn good.
My fault for not being clear. If an enemy wants to close on an opponent who is attacking with reach, they only need to move 5ft.
And you are right, the enemy might be next to another opponent and be unable to follow the snake. but moving in an out of combat means that with that 30 ft, they are only able to stick 20 ft away (15 ft move, 5 ft reach) that is still in the danger zone of melee combat. And if you end up in a bad position because you used too much movement, the enemy can simply circle your more dangerous PC, and be in reach of the snake.
It is a good strategy, but it isn’t a strategy without weaknesses, and it shouldn’t be the only strategy that is viable for Beastmasters, they should have more viable strategies than that one.
If your plan is to be an archer, do not be a beastmaster. It's as simple as that. The Beastmaster just is not the archer subclass. There is no point to you arguing you want a melee engaged companion if you plan on keeping your ranger out of melee. Pick a strategy.
You're darn right it's not. YOU are the one demanding a melee engaged companion. You can do that - but not if you also want a ranger attacking from range. You will not get it all. You can have either melee or ranged, but the beastmaster is structured such that you cannot have both, and I happen to think that's a very smart way for them to have created it. You want a companion fighting in melee, cool. Then like the description of the sub-class says, "you gain a beast companion that accompanies you on your adventures and is trained to fight alongside you."
So there is no precedent for an Archer with a Hawk or Owl companion? No concept of tag-teaming by covering both far range and melee.
Hell, hunting dogs were trained to chase down prey while people with guns or bows went for the kill shot.
But sure, your PHB says that if you want a beast companion you must be a melee character. Just be aware, no one else feels that Rangers should be limited that much.
And to turn to this point, are you now insisting that “trained to fight alongside you” literally means right next to you. Thought that discussion was had and you were on the other side of that fence.
And why is it smart to design it that way, but nowhere state it as a fact? Nothing prevents it in the current beastmaster.
YOU are the one stating that beastmaster’s can’t be archers, beasts have always been melee options, we just want them to be decent at it to make
an entire subclass and theme work as intended
I do. In this game you can either be a ranged attacker or a melee attacker. You want to be both simultaneous (and you want each to be equally powerful as well). Yes, that is "I want it all" thinking. It's a beast companion. You can do all sorts of things with them outside of combat, but if you want it to do MELEE combat, then you need to fight alongside it for it to be effective. And that's a fair way to structure the class.
Can you point to me where it says fighters lose access to bows when they decide to wield a sword? Do mages forget all ranged spells if they take Shocking Grasp or Vampiric Touch?
There is no “You must pick melee or ranged, you cannot do both”. If you want to give us beasts that have ranged attacks, then go ahead. But, you are the only one who somehow thinks there must be this one or the other design. We have no choice about Beasts in melee, there isn’t some other beast we can get, so yes, we want them to survive melee, since that is the only place they can be in combat. Heck, I can even prove “Reach” is a melee option, know how? Every single Reach weapon in the game is a melee weapon. There are no weapons with the Reach property listed as ranged weapons. Because that makes no sense, the Reach property just allows people to attack in melee while not immediately next to an enemy.
And let us not forget, we’ve already covered how the beast’s utility is far below that of the Find Familiar spell, a first level ritual that only costs the user gold, and not even that much gold. So, unless you can prove that Familiar’s are not better utility options in every way than an Animal Companion, they are a combat option. As a combat option, they only have melee attacks (even if one option can attack at reach) and so should they not be able to survive melee?
And nothing about the companion says "You must fight melee" either. YOU are the one demanding that your companion choose that strategy. OK, then you MUST also be melee to use it effectively.
Show me a single beast that can attack an enemy from further than 30 ft away. One. Not a fly-by attack that allows them to leave melee range after their attack. Not a reach of 10 ft which only puts them one step away from the enemy (and therefore still in melee). Show me a single animal companion option that can attack from 30 ft away by RAW. Then I will agree that
we are insisting companions be in melee instead of it being
the rules insisting on it.
Something else I'd like to see as additional rules: better barding clarifications. Right now the DMG says any animal can have barding made for them. However it doesn't say how proficiency works with it. Are all animals automatically proficient with any armor made specifically for them? Are none of the proficient and therefore they all have disadvantage while attacking in armor? Can they be trained in armor using animal handling checks to become proficient? Is it like a downtime activity similar to tools?
It is implied that animals need proficiency in Barding, because warhorses are specifically called out as being able to wear barding.