D&D 5E Thoughts on a DM ruling for Beastmaster Ranger

[Asisreo]

A DM I am playing with had ruled that once a beastmaster's companion dies, they can allow any beast that isn't hostile to be my new companion regardless of size or CR. Their thoughts is that since they can essentially control what's "hostile" that it won't be in the realm of unbalanced.

I'm not opposed to this ruling but I've never seen it ruled this way. Thoughts? Basically that only the initial beast has the restriction.

 

[aco175]

Any beast sounds a bit open-ended and up for abuse. I can see a lot of low-level rangers having their companion 'accidently' kick the proverbial bucket. "Oh shoot Fluffy died- Can I get a T-rex."

The DM does control what hostile is and can use this to force a certain animal on you, but a better DM would work with you to give you a beast you also want. Reminds me of the old 1e wizard story where he steps on his toad familiar since he wanted a raven or such and then takes half the damage and kills himself.

You will see others post that its the DMs game and he is always right, but it is also worth a talk with him before it gets that far.

 

[Asisreo]

Any beast sounds a bit open-ended and up for abuse. I can see a lot of low-level rangers having their companion 'accidently' kick the proverbial bucket. "Oh shoot Fluffy died- Can I get a T-rex."

The DM does control what hostile is and can use this to force a certain animal on you, but a better DM would work with you to give you a beast you also want. Reminds me of the old 1e wizard story where he steps on his toad familiar since he wanted a raven or such and then takes half the damage and kills himself.

You will see others post that its the DMs game and he is always right, but it is also worth a talk with him before it gets that far.

To be clear, I'm the beastmaster and I'm not planning on abusing the ruling but I was curious if there is any forseeable consequences to this that I wouldn't have control over. I trust they won't just say "you only find rats, the end." But it might also mean he gives me a companion that outshines others or is underpowered in most situations like a shark...

 

[CreamCloud0]

If interpreted RAI I’d say that’s not possible, all beast companions must be 1/4CR medium creatures.

If being a bit more generous and putting my own spin on things I’d say 1/4CR medium creatures are the ones they can summon/bond with at will but anything above those restrictions require you to find the creature in the world and make a not insignificant animal handling check, also I’d probably cap the max CR of the alternate creatures they can bond with according to the tier they’re at, 1/4CR per tier i think maybe? So at T2 they could bond a 1/2CR beast and T3 a 3/4CR one and so on, Would that be balanced?

 

[iserith]

I wonder what the purpose of that house rule is. It seems like the goal is to give you the possibility of a stronger beast than normal, but then that's ultimately up to the DM. Of course, so is whether you encounter any beast and whether you can make it your companion. So I'm not sure what purpose this serves.

But anyway, just take animal friendship and spam it on all the best beasts until you find one that fails a saving throw.

 

[aco175]

I would still talk with the DM. He is affecting part of your class. Kind of like changing spells on the wizard or moving 2nd wind to 4th level on the fighters. As a general, I think DMs should stay out of the PHB and leave that to the players. Not all the time and he does need to make rulings that affect their game, but this is why you talk to him before it becomes a problem. Maybe he has something cool planned for this one campaign.

 

[overgeeked]

they can allow any beast that isn't hostile to be my new companion regardless of size or CR

Wow. That’s busted.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If the DM trusts you as a player, and your game takes story aspects seriously (things like NPC reactions to wild animals, the ins and outs of stabling animals within cities etc.) there's no reason not to let you just find a creature you are interested in having be your animal companion.

You will know based upon where your character is what the likelihood of different beasts are out there to find. If you and the DM takes the world seriously, you both know you won't be able to just go out and "find a T-Rex" or "find a Winter Wolf" or "find an orca" or any of the odd/or and overpowered choices... you will have to make realistic searches for what animals you might come across. And truth be told... if you did happen to lose your original companion... you might very well end up finding a new one based upon the adventures you have and who you come across as part of the story, rather than just doing the lame thing of flipping through the Monster Manual and finding the biggest and baddest beast there is and pointing at it, declaring "This is the one I want!"

The Beastmaster subclass and its animal companion is as much Story as it is just additional PC combat power. And if the DM believes you will treat your choices in that way... as an extension of your character's growth... then it won't matter what type of animal it is if you are more interested in playing the relationship between you and it, rather than just using it as another random damaging attack.

 

[Asisreo]

So I talked some more with the DM and he says it's RAW and RAI that it's any beast. He claims that because there was no stipulations in the last clause that mentions CR or size like the first clause, that the next beast can be whatever the party happens to encounter that isn't hostile.

I noted that this isn't how it's worded but he says that you have to read the PHB by the letter and that the letter doesn't specify what the next companion can be.

I also noted how it might be broken and he said they "need" the buff anyways which I disagree with. I'm not against being stronger but interparty balance is something that I, as a fellow DM, am very wary of.

I don't know if I want to bother convincing him since it's his rules and I'm not even opposed to it fundamentally but I feel like it's somehow wrong to call it RAW.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't know if I want to bother convincing him since it's his rules and I'm not even opposed to it fundamentally but I feel like it's somehow wrong to call it RAW.

Then don't. No one has to call it RAW or RAI or RAC or anything. Just find a normal companion you like that suits you and go with it. No reason for anyone to worry about what you end up selecting, provided you don't go over the top with your selection.