D&D General Which Ranger Companion Solution Do You Prefer/Use

[Steampunkette]

Interesting. I haven’t looked at it, is it specifically for A5e?

Neither of them have come out. Martial Artistry will be on Backerkit on the 15th. I know what is in it 'cause I wrote it.

Pets and Sidekicks is "Coming Soon" on Kickstarter, but mentions "Heroic Levels" for companions and sidekicks.

Both are designed to be 5e compatible for 2014 and 2024. Also Tales of the Valiant. Or any other 5e variant you enjoy.

 

[el-remmen]

I rewrote MCDM’s Beastheart as a Ranger subclass.

 

[Horwath]

I do kinda like the simplicity of it... but.

1) At level 1 (and all following levels) there's a chance the companion has more HP than the PC, doubling their effective hit points as a 'total character'.
2) Plant companions are significantly less subject to spellcasting affecting them.
3) The movement speeds seem rather arbitrary, and don't really fit most animal companions which tend to be faster than their master.
4) Does AC also include Dex Bonus on top of your proficiency? At level 1 you could have a small companion with a 15 AC and 10hp. Plus 2 from Con, potentially, for 12hp. More than most classes.

I dunno. It's streamlined, but I feel like there's better ways to do it without breaking most of the rules of the game for NPC design.

it's a level 4 feat(needed to clarify that), will edit, so unless you want to be a wizard with 8 con, you should have more HP than a companion. something like 80% of PCs have 14 Con.
AC, HP is fixed with prof bonus, irrelevant of ability scores, same with attack or damage, abilities only affect skills and saves.

 

[Steampunkette]

it's a level 4 feat(needed to clarify that), will edit, so unless you want to be a wizard with 8 con, you should have more HP than a companion. something like 80% of PCs have 14 Con.
AC, HP is fixed with prof bonus, irrelevant of ability scores, same with attack or damage, abilities only affect skills and saves.

Ohhh... but that doesn't really help the Ranger with their animal companion. It just makes a feat so anyone can have an animal companion in a loosely defined manner. (Very loosely if they picked plant! )

 

[sevenbastard]

I force one of the other players to roll up a tabaxi monk and call them my tiger animal companion.

 

[J-H]

My son is having fun playing his 2014+Tasha's Beastmaster. His bear has its own mini and everything. It goes down sometimes, but since it scales with levels, it's up to 65 or 70hp and AC 17 at this point. He can also use its bonus action to have it attack twice for 1d8+7ish (don't recall) damage, so he's effectively attacking 4 times in total per round.
It's pretty solid.

They just hit level 13 and he now has first hand experience with the Ranger spell list having almost no good choices at 4th level (I think he's going Guardian of Nature/Great Tree).

The 5.14 Ranger with Tasha's fixes would be substantially better if it had a spell list as strong as the Paladin.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

My general rule is that pets get their own actions and can attack with them regardless of what's written. Otherwise it's leaning into the idea of the pet as a class feature rather than a character too much for me.

So if a feature says you can spend a bonus action to let a pet attack, I treat that as in addition to their normal action/attack.

Anyone can get a pet who can take their own actions (might not take the actions you would prefer) and make their own attacks without needing a class feature, because it's D&D and of course you can! So I make the class feature an upgrade on top of that assumed state of affairs.

The default rules where a creature loses the natural ability to do things it otherwise could when it becomes a class feature is extremely unsatisfying to me.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My general rule is that pets get their own actions and can attack with them regardless of what's written. Otherwise it's leaning into the idea of the pet as a class feature rather than a character too much for me.

So if a feature says you can spend a bonus action to let a pet attack, I treat that as in addition to their normal action/attack.

Anyone can get a pet who can take their own actions (might not take the actions you would prefer) and make their own attacks without needing a class feature, because it's D&D and of course you can! So I make the class feature an upgrade on top of that assumed state of affairs.

The default rules where a creature loses the natural ability to do things it otherwise could when it becomes a class feature is extremely unsatisfying to me.

Yeah I don’t love it. Even the familiar not being able to attack annoys me.