Beastmaster Ranger to be Errata-cized

[RickAsWritten]

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/11/01/ranger-beast-master-errata-will-add-new-features-to-your-animal-companion/

Per Crawford, they are going to add a (scant)few changes.

Your beast's attacks will count as magical at some point.
If un-commanded the beast will take the Dodge action.

[ImproperJustice]

Kinda reminds me of when the Catholic Church pardoned Galileo in 1995.

*Comment not intended to be offensive to those of the Catholic persuasion.
Just an example of how progress can be really, really slow sometimes.

[Oramac]

Yay?

I still don't understand why the Revised Ranger hasn't been published. Or, at the least, the Beastmaster part of it.

[KOLE]

They can do whatever they want with the PHB Ranger. I will continue to authorize any of my players interested in ranger to use the Revised Ranger. Until they publish that- I'll continue not to care.

Those two little tweaks are so insignificant to the actual issues with the Beastmaster IMO.

[MaxWilson]

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/11/01/ranger-beast-master-errata-will-add-new-features-to-your-animal-companion/

Per Crawford, they are going to add a (scant)few changes.

Your beast's attacks will count as magical at some point.
If un-commanded the beast will take the Dodge action.

Auto-Dodge is not horrible, although it still leaves the beast as being dumber and less motivated than a regular attack dog that you buy from the store. A better fix is to only grant the Beastmaster bonus to attacks/damage/saves/AC when the Beastmaster is actively commanding it, and at other times the beast will just act normally and get no bonuses. "Fido, bite [for +6!]! Down, boy [+6 vs. Fireball save]!" shows that the Beastmaster is actively participating through his pet.

As with so many things WotC, their best efforts are appreciated but still worse than what you could create on your own.

[Desteplo]

Auto-Dodge is not horrible, although it still leaves the beast as being dumber and less motivated than a regular attack dog that you buy from the store. A better fix is to only grant the Beastmaster bonus to attacks/damage/saves/AC when the Beastmaster is actively commanding it, and at other times the beast will just act normally and get no bonuses. "Fido, bite [for +6!]! Down, boy [+6 vs. Fireball save]!" shows that the Beastmaster is actively participating through his pet.

As with so many things WotC, their best efforts are appreciated but still worse than what you could create on your own.

A dog you bought at the store is also harder to handle. Beast companion is your call. A blood thirsty hound in a frenzy would require a animal handling check not to attack the child that you meant to save from the bandits

I think this is perfect and thousands of times I’ve seen people rip the phb to shreds and a few people who weren’t on the hummer with bats and torches suggested these two things at minimum.

[Rhedyn]

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/11/01/ranger-beast-master-errata-will-add-new-features-to-your-animal-companion/

Per Crawford, they are going to add a (scant)few changes.

Your beast's attacks will count as magical at some point.
If un-commanded the beast will take the Dodge action.
Still worse than just letting the DM make more sensible rulings at their table.

[Man_Over_Game]

Let's wait and see what happens. There may be some more decisions along the way that they plan on putting in. If they say, for example, to continue to follow the command until stated otherwise, and will use their action to dodge if they cannot perform the command, that would be enough to fix most of the subclass.

[Speely]

Looks like they has some extra turd polish laying around. ;)

[djreynolds]

Kinda reminds me of when the Catholic Church pardoned Galileo in 1995.

*Comment not intended to be offensive to those of the Catholic persuasion.
Just an example of how progress can be really, really slow sometimes.

This is funny


Looks like they has some extra turd polish laying around. ;)

Turd polish is right, this sucks.

The animal has no identity.

They created this class to be like Drizzt and his panther... it is not.

It is a beast not to get attached to, it is to be used as a weapon, want a pal take find steed

-------------
Magic attacks okay

Dodge with no command, then the creature has an action and can and should do any number of things, not just dodge

[ATHATH]

If they're gonna release errata, can they make the Monk's ability to use their DEX modifier for certain weapons make those weapons having Finesse when used by the Monk? Also, could they make natural weapons count as Monk weapons (but NOT count as unarmed strikes)?

[Rowan Wolf]

Only took them 4 years to spot that difference. What is with them and the Ranger class?

[Tanarii]

I really wish they wouldn't. There is very little wrong with the PHB ranger, and even less wrong with the PHB Beastmaster. It is a powerful subclass with a class feature that perfectly gives a mechanical feel to match the flavor of "beast and man fight in tandem".

More to the point, sweeping changes should never be errata. The only thing that should change the PHB drastically. is a new edition. If they want to publish an optional revised Ranger for the people crying for one, do that. Don't "errata" the PHB. That just gives lie to the idea of an evergreen PHB.

[sophontteks]

I think 5e's class balance is great. Every class is strong in their own right with great options that enhance roleplay. And...crap I forgot the ranger still exists.

[JakOfAllTirades]

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/11/01/ranger-beast-master-errata-will-add-new-features-to-your-animal-companion/

Per Crawford, they are going to add a (scant)few changes.

Your beast's attacks will count as magical at some point.
If un-commanded the beast will take the Dodge action.

So what? No, really.

[jas61292]

If they are going to make any changes, these are the changes to make. The lack of magic on their attacks made them fairly worthless at higher levels, despite the otherwise good damage. Adding that feels like a necessary addition. Now, as for the dodging, that is nice, both in that it is a small patch on the beast's biggest weakness, survivability, and for making the beast feel less like an automoton and more like a living thing.

Did the ranger need this? No. But it is nice and may actually let beastmasters be decent at higher levels without needing to pick a highly poisonous snake.

And it's a much better fix than publishing the hideously balanced revised ranger.

[Tanarii]

And it's a much better fix than publishing the hideously balanced revised ranger.
Eh.

I mean Amen to that. The Revised Ranger is unnecessarily OP. It needs major reworking to be balanced.

But if they want to sneak in an optional variant Beastmaster into a splat somewhere, more power to them. Those who want to purchase it and use it as the +1 or by DM approval can do so. Those that can't be bothered because it's not needed can skip it.

[NaughtyTiger]

There is ... even less wrong with the PHB Beastmaster. It is a powerful subclass with a class feature that perfectly gives a mechanical feel to match the flavor of "beast and man fight in tandem".

The rest of this post is spot on, but I disagree about the Beastmaster. It's a fun class, but there are clearly problems with it.

Nothing the player can do to give it magic attacks
Ranger loses bonus action attack (ends up 2 attacks behind hunter); however, DMs rarely enforce it.
If beast dies, the archetype is gone until the DM provides a replacement (sorry, you are in a dungeon without beasts)
The DM chooses the replacement (sorry, you want a tiger, but you are in a dungeon)
More limited action economy than any other NPC. (ranger and beast can't dodge, but familiar can cast spell AND dodge)

[Naanomi]

If beast dies, the archetype is gone until the DM provides a replacement (sorry, you are in a dungeon without beasts)
The DM chooses the replacement (sorry, you want a tiger, but you are in a dungeon)
From personal experience; nothing quite as sad as a beastmaster with a dead pet, fighting outside their favored terrain, against enemies other than their racial enemies.

[stoutstien]

Bm pets need more staying power not damage out put. Proficiency to all saves or resistance to damage would help.

[djreynolds]

I have played both beastmaster versions.
My issue with the PHB is not if the creature dies, it's when I get a new one... it's ready to go.

If some creature snaps my magical great axe, there probably isn't one five rooms down the hall.

But if you kill the wolf I've trained, I can grab any beast and in 8 hours... it's a passable trained beast.

Now it feels like I've defeated my own argument as to why the PHB beastmaster does need change. I mean being able to grab a bat or toad and in 8 hours turn into a tough little critter sounds powerful. 4hp per my ranger level, could be an 80hp humming bird.

But it's not what players want.

The PHB beastmaster really uses its beast as just another weapon... and it is strong considering the beast can be where you are not. At 5th level you can stab this guy, and over there your wolf prones another dude.
You give up an attack with your sword for it's bite attack, and at lower levels it can be deadly. No different than stabbing with a sword, and then swinging a hammer. And at higher levels if it dies, another beast can be found, like a rat or bat to replace it.

But what players want is a lifelong buddy, Drizzt and his panther. They want a pet that can be sculpted and grows as the player does.

Players do not want to change out an 80hp panther, for an 80hp white rabbit because the panther they had for 19 levels is dead, and this vicious rabbit is the only beast present.

For us on the forum it's mechanics, for players it's concept, it's their family pet reborn... Almost sacred.

[Naanomi]

Why is Drizzt’s panther being brought up so much? Wasn’t it just a ‘figurine or wonderous power’?

[LudicSavant]

It's a step in the right direction, but such an incredibly small and inconsequential step that it'll probably just feel like adding insult to injury for players who dream of playing a proper Beastmaster.

[djreynolds]

Why is Drizzt’s panther being brought up so much? Wasn’t it just a ‘figurine or wonderous power’?

But that's what players think. Its you buddy.

Saying Drizzt hasn't influenced D&D, could be crazy.

Except for scimitars called twinkle

How about shared spell comes earlier?
How shared feats? Shared class abilities?

[Nifft]

Why is Drizzt’s panther being brought up so much? Wasn’t it just a ‘figurine or wonderous power’?

Drizzt was a dual-wielder because 1e Drow were ambidextrous.

Then ignorant fanboys insisted that all Rangers be able to dual-wield, and now they can.

The fact that some people draw mechanically incorrect inspiration from Drizzt is not really a new thing -- it goes back to 2e, if not earlier.

[NaughtyTiger]

If some creature snaps my magical great axe, there probably isn't one five rooms down the hall.

But if you kill the wolf I've trained, I can grab any beast and in 8 hours... it's a passable trained beast.


how often do you break an axe? magical weapons are near invulnerable.
how often do you find a valid beast deep in the dungeon?
how often do you come up against a Blug/Pierc/Slash resistance/immune creature that the 80hp hummingbird can be effective against.

[Mr.Spastic]

Honestly, this doesn't really effect me that much. I have been using a homebrew ranger that has the natural explorer and favored enemy from the UA, and a custom beastmaster. I currently have a ranger in my game and it has been going great.

What my player has for his animal companion. It had to be CR 1/2 or lower with a d8 hit die.


It moves and acts on your turn, your animal companion has an action that it can use to make one attack, and a bonus action.(I wanted it to feel like your a coordinated team)
If you chose an animal that has multiattack, you can use your bonus action to command it to use the attack. It uses it's bonus action to make this attack.(More coordination. My player doesn't use this as he has a panther)
Spells you cast that target you also target your animal companion. (I liked this from the PHB but thought you should start with it. A paladin with find steed shouldn't have a better animal then the beast master)
When you get your animal companion it gets and ASI. When you get an ASI/feat it also gets an ASI.(Allows for a 16 in most primary attack stats
I uses your proficiency for it's skills. And adds your proficiency to it's AC and to the DC of any saving throw it causes.(For my player, this meant that his panther had a +7 to stealth because it has expertise.)
Whenever you level up you animal companion gains another hit die and it's hit points increase accordingly.
It gains proficiency in two skills. Choose from Stealth, Perception, Athletics, Acrobatics, Survival, Insight, or Performance.


We are level three and this has been working wonderfully. I don't have the level 7 planned out, but I'm think just giving it magic attacks and maybe a shared bonus action help(you and animal both use bonus action).

I think that this also balances well between different animals. A panther would have a high AC and be good at stealth attacks, while a black bear would have lower AC but better hp and attack capabilities. And a wolf would be somewhere in between.

[MaxWilson]

Bm pets need more staying power not damage out put. Proficiency to all saves or resistance to damage would help.

No, at high levels against weapon-resistant foes, they need more damage too. At medium levels they're fine but the magical weapons things is a good change from the perspective of keeping them relevant.

They've already got +Proficiency to all saves and AC IIRC.


Players do not want to change out an 80hp panther, for an 80hp white rabbit because the panther they had for 19 levels is dead, and this vicious rabbit is the only beast present.

For us on the forum it's mechanics, for players it's concept, it's their family pet reborn... Almost sacred.

Proposal:

Invent a new Ranger spell: Revivify Beast. 100gp of diamonds, 2nd level, works only on beasts.

[Daghoulish]

They've already got +Proficiency to all saves and AC IIRC.

Only to ac based on what my PHB says. The relevant lines are.

"Add your proficiency bonus to the beast's AC, attack rolls, and damage rolls, as well as to any saving throws and skills it is proficient in."

And I vaguely remember looking and no beast you can get is actually proficient in any save.

[Vorpalchicken]

I think some read that as "all saves. And all skills they are proficient in."
Rather than "all saves and skills they are proficient in."
It's probably meant to be the former but I'd let the poor beast have the latter.

[stoutstien]

I think some read that as "all saves. And all skills they are proficient in."
Rather than "all saves and skills they are proficient in."
It's probably meant to be the former but I'd let the poor beast have the latter.
Second this and would have been a better errata with magic bypass damage

[Zalabim]

I've said it elsewhere before, so I might as well say it again. Skipping to the end, the only way of dealing with resistance that the beast companion lacks is silvered weapons, and that just doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. Despite what's intended, Magic Weapon, and other spells that work on a weapon you touch, should apply to natural weapons as well (unless they specify manufactured weapon or object). Not that rangers learn any of those spells. The Insignia of Claws is a dead simple magic weapon equivalent detailed in one of the adventures. In fact, the only way for a Hunter to deal with weapon resistance without outside help is to cast a damaging spell (which never really benefits from their subclass feature) and get a silvered weapon, which doesn't cut it against everything.

Adding magical attacks to the beast companion helps the Beast Master in comparison to some of the Xanathar's subclasses, but the Hunter still sucks. The Ranger still sucks.

[Tanarii]

I think some read that as "all saves. And all skills they are proficient in."

When I ran my Beastmaster ranger in AL (closer to 5e release) this was the way the DMs all read it.

[NaughtyTiger]

In fact, the only way for a Hunter to deal with weapon resistance without outside help is to cast a damaging spell (which never really benefits from their subclass feature) and get a silvered weapon, which doesn't cut it against everything.

or a +x bow or any magical sword or ...

[stoutstien]

I know woc was so scared of breaking the action economy they broke BM rangers instead. What if, now this going to sound insane, we just remove the pet from the rangers action economy and gave in a initiative that matches the rangers? The pet can take the standard actions. Yes that means at lv three a BM ranger can effectively have three attacks while dw but meh.
7th lv now has magical Beasty damage and if your pet attacks a enemy after you hit it with a weapon attack it has advantage on the attack.
11th lv and 15th lv features flip. This gives the per access to buffs to increase survivability and damage out put (zephyr strike works well.)

Also both phb rangers need expanded spell list like xans options. Bm could be
3rd beast bond
5th warding bond
9th nondetection
13th freedom of movement
17th awaken

[Luccan]

or a +x bow or any magical sword or ...

Yeah. The important thing to remember is the Beastmaster is still expected to be using their beast at high levels, so they absolutely need a way for them to do consistent damage in-class. And if the actual Beastmaster wants to be effective against those enemies, they also need a magic weapon. So Beastmasters need an upgrade to their pet and themselves, but Hunters are just like every other warrior in the game in that regard.

[Tanarii]

I know woc was so scared of breaking the action economy they broke BM rangers instead. What if, now this going to sound insane, we just remove the pet from the rangers action economy and gave in a initiative that matches the rangers? The pet can take the standard actions. Yes that means at lv three a BM ranger can effectively have three attacks while dw but meh.
You take a subclass with solid DPR and make it just silly.

Beastmasters don't need a DPR increase in the first place. Certainly not one of the amount.

[Specter]

Wizards guys:
- Hey, we need to do something about this ranger beast feeling like a robot in battle
- Let's add automated programming to it
- k bruh

[Nifft]

Wizards guys:
- Hey, we need to do something about this ranger beast feeling like a robot in battle
- Let's add automated programming to it
- k bruh
"We need a debug mode."
- Invent spell remove fleas.

"Hey my beast died in the middle of an operation and I wasn't able to wait around or check its status."
- Add zombie child process rules.

"My beast is fine at low levels but at high levels I need more cool features."
- Add support for Firefox, Java-Python, and Fancy Bear.

[Theodoric]

One of my players is planning on taking Beastmaster just to have a pet he can sic on his enemies and I'm just going to houserule the 'Attack action' bit as an 'attack order', ie. the beast is autonomous but needs to be given rough directions to attack, without needing to be micromanaged each round. I really doubt having a slightly boosted CR 1/4 pet's going to alter combat balance dramatically, and if it does I as a GM can compensate.

It's not ideal that I need to houserule it to work satisfactorily, but then they made 5e flexible enough for that sort of houseruling to work, so I'm okay with it.

[Citan]

Auto-Dodge is not horrible, although it still leaves the beast as being dumber and less motivated than a regular attack dog that you buy from the store. A better fix is to only grant the Beastmaster bonus to attacks/damage/saves/AC when the Beastmaster is actively commanding it, and at other times the beast will just act normally and get no bonuses. "Fido, bite [for +6!]! Down, boy [+6 vs. Fireball save]!" shows that the Beastmaster is actively participating through his pet.

As with so many things WotC, their best efforts are appreciated but still worse than what you could create on your own.
I think this is a great idea to tackle one of the main gripes people have with Beastmaster which is having abstract game mechanics clutter the "man & beast relationship".
That way the beast can be a regular creature, yet Ranger can still display the result of mutual trust and training.
Nice idea!

The other gripe people have is with lack of resilience of beast. One thing to be done could be to add an "Inspiring Leader" like feature or "1/rest Healing Words like" just for the beast (although now that Ranger can learn Healing Spirit the need is lesser).

Wizards guys:
- Hey, we need to do something about this ranger beast feeling like a robot in battle
- Let's add automated programming to it
- k bruh
Great (hilarious, or sad, not sure which) sum-up. :)

[Xetheral]

I really wish they wouldn't. There is very little wrong with the PHB ranger, and even less wrong with the PHB Beastmaster. It is a powerful subclass with a class feature that perfectly gives a mechanical feel to match the flavor of "beast and man fight in tandem".

(Emphasis added.) This is the part I don't like. The beast feels mechanical. :P


More to the point, sweeping changes should never be errata. The only thing that should change the PHB drastically. is a new edition. If they want to publish an optional revised Ranger for the people crying for one, do that. Don't "errata" the PHB. That just gives lie to the idea of an evergreen PHB.

I tend to agree. Although changing it from +Prof to "all" saves instead of "any" saves would be very appropriate for errata. I also think modifying a current feature to include counting the beasts attacks as magical would be fine--it's analagous to correcting an oversight (regardless of the true motivation). I'd draw the line at rearranging features or adding new ones.

That being said, I don't think errata alone can fix the "mechanical feel" problem.

[Tanarii]

(Emphasis added.) This is the part I don't like. The beast feels mechanical. :PI'll never get this. To me, sharing actions makes it feel like PC and Ranger's Companion fight as one. It's very inspired and creative mechanic to invoke the correct feeling.

There are some buggy bits to the subclass though. Like TWF not working with the Companion attacking, since the Ranger didn't take an attack action, he took an (unspecified special) action to command the Companion to take its Attack action. I don't really like the whole "D&D ranger = TWF" thing that 2e created, and was happy to play a Beastmaster Ranger that alternated S&B and 2H as defensive vs offensive needs dictated. But at this point it is what it is, so the PHB subclasses shouldn't have features that work against it by being their own not-Attack actions. (Hunters have Whirlwind.)


I tend to agree. Although changing it from +Prof to "all" saves instead of "any" saves would be very appropriate for errata.If people have been interpreting as anything other than the prof bonus applies to Companion saves, then yeah it probably should be reworded.

But yeah my objection would be to errata making sweeping changes like the Revised ranger. Fixing some unclear wording isn't bad.

[sophontteks]

Yeah they fight as one. A bit too much. To the point where they are not two separate entities. I'd say thats the point. The creature is supposed to be its own independent entity. That's what we want.

[stoutstien]

You take a subclass with solid DPR and make it just silly.

Beastmasters don't need a DPR increase in the first place. Certainly not one of the amount.

Challenge accepted.
Hypothesis Beastmaster Rangers damage is on par with Hunter Rangers. Any change to the action economy will unbalance the two.

Alright I'm going to make two pseudo PC Rangers. Let's take wood elf. Thematically and mechanically a good choice.
Lets use the standard array and build them both for ranged and then melee so I have four different building total. So starting with 16 in Dex and Wis
HR(r)= Hunter with a bow
HR(m)= Hunter with twf
Bm(r)= Beastmaster with bow
Bm(m)=Beastmaster with twf
Now this is discounting strengths-based Rangers, Rangers using two-handed weapons, and Ranger with Shield. I have done the math of these but all it's he pushes the hunter ahead even more so we'll leave those out for now.
At lv 3 we have when the player chooses which one will compare the two.
Combat scenario 1
A pair of goblins seem fitting. Xp budget of 150. Will say the ranger in engaged with two of them alone, scouting or whatnot.( I won't bother posting mob stats and no spell slot usage.)
HR(r)- +7 hit vs 15 AC and 7hp.(so any damage over 5 will make the goblin flee. Not a fight to death encounter.) %60 chance to hit for 1d8+3(8) damage. But wait if the hunter took horde breaker that's a free attack vs the second target.(goblins smart enough to flank?) Even if this only happens half the time it's a 100% increase of potential damage output at lv 3.
Now most bow users will take Colossus slayer. In this fight it would be over kill.
HR(m) +5 hit. 55% hit chance but with DW and horde breaker. That three chances to cause 1d6+3.
BM(r)60% to hit 1d8+3 and they have a wolf pet so +5 hit. 60% chance to do 2d4+4(8). Might prone but won't help with bow.
BM(m)time to rock! on on those goblins. 55% to hit 1d6+3x2 and wolf pack tactics means 65% chance hit for 8. Prone could get the ranger advantage as well but even weak goblins can pass DC 11 45% of the time. (DC need scaling...maybe half Prof bonus?)

So at lv 3 a BM in melee range can beat a hunter in damage by facing multiple weak enemies...by 2 damage a round.
I start new tread comparing new BM vs phb hunter at 7, 11, and 15.

[Tanarii]

A wolf does 2d4+4 damage at level 3, plus knockdown, at advantage. It doesn't require enemies to be standing next to each other, which is IMx incredibly unlikely when you're an archer ranger, unless you're fighting into a melee and thus dealing with cover. (Happens more often in melee because they're coming to you. That's fine.)

What breaks the DPR comparisons is (as usual) the -5/+10 of Sharpshooter or GWM.

Edit: another commonly overlooked fact is that Companions can wear barding.

[stoutstien]

A wolf does 2d4+4 damage at level 3, plus knockdown, at advantage. It doesn't require enemies to be standing next to each other, which is IMx incredibly unlikely when you're an archer ranger, unless you're fighting into a melee and thus dealing with cover. (Happens more often in melee because they're coming to you. That's fine.)

What breaks the DPR comparisons is (as usual) the -5/+10 of Sharpshooter or GWM.

Edit: another commonly overlooked fact is that Companions can wear barding.

Why I only gave pack tactics to melee BM and not BM with a bow.
didn't factor cover yet due to being lv 3 and just ranger vs a goblin patrol. Will be added at later lv comparisons.(not looking forward to dealing with volley and cover.)

I allow it but Barding is dm dependent. Pets ac should be good enough without dm Fiat. (16-20 ac).

[Tanarii]

Why I only gave pack tactics to melee BM and not BM with a bow.
didn't factor cover yet due to being lv 3 and just ranger vs a goblin patrol. Will be added at later lv comparisons.(not looking forward to dealing with volley and cover.)Creatures create cover for other creature. My point was its rare to get a shot at two creatures standing next to each other unless they are in melee so someone. And in that situation, and archer usually has to deal with the creatures getting cover from another creature. Often their own ally.

Creatures in an archery duel should definitely be spread out and using cover. I have new players forget that all the time, they just stand there in the open getting shot at. They usually learn in their first archery duel by watching the enemy.


I allow it but Barding is dm dependent. Pets ac should be good enough without dm Fiat. (16-20 ac).If your DM is denying a PHB RAW way to give your Companion AC, then yes, you might want to consider another class.

[Tanarii]

(Deleted)
:smallamused:
Edit: Self-scrubbed to respect poster removing post.

[Pex]

I'm fine with that when the complains are either grounded mechanically. Or totally a preference thing.

For example, the complaint about "robot companions", I'm expressing a opinion that it makes no sense to me. But if others feel that it would work better without bound actions, if they had found a balanced way to do it, so be it. Except that it shouldn't be completely rewritten as errata.

Similarly complaints about Natural Explorer or Favored Enemy being somewhat limited and dependent on the adventures are true. They're fairly powerful and defining abilities when they are in play though.

But complaints about Ranger DPR are not grounded.

You ninja you.

I deleted post, It was unnecessarily antagonistic.

[stoutstien]

Creatures create cover for other creature. My point was its rare to get a shot at two creatures standing next to each other unless they are in melee so someone. And in that situation, and archer usually has to deal with the creatures getting cover from another creature. Often their own ally.

Creatures in an archery duel should definitely be spread out and using cover. I have new players forget that all the time, they just stand there in the open getting shot at. They usually learn in their first archery duel by watching the enemy.

If your DM is denying a PHB RAW way to give your Companion AC, then yes, you might want to consider another class.

That's the trick isn't it? White room math is useless and conditions can be literally anything so it's hard to judge the effects of changes you make.

Barding can be out of budget for players early on. 1600 gold for an increase of 1 ac. 15 naked vs half-plate if they want vto be sneaky or 400 gold for disadvantage on steath checks.
Then you have to find an armor Smith that takes time to make it.

[Edenbeast]

(Emphasis added.) This is the part I don't like. The beast feels mechanical. :P



I tend to agree. Although changing it from +Prof to "all" saves instead of "any" saves would be very appropriate for errata. I also think modifying a current feature to include counting the beasts attacks as magical would be fine--it's analagous to correcting an oversight (regardless of the true motivation). I'd draw the line at rearranging features or adding new ones.

That being said, I don't think errata alone can fix the "mechanical feel" problem.

That is why I allow proficiency bonus to all saves, and I interpreted the description of the "companion bonds magically" to mean its damage counts as magical. I think these two are easy to errata.

For the rest, I'm curious what else they will change. I didn't like the revised ranger. There is the consensus ranger which I like better, but so far we've used the PHB ranger with minor changes.

The problem with "mechanical feel" is, in essence, the entire game is mechanical, there's no way getting around it, there's a game system to accommodate the roleplaying and combat. If you don't want it to be mechanical then do it freestyle without any rules.

In my opinion the beast master makes sense in a way. Or at least in my imagination it's flavourful... The beast doesn't speak any language, and so the only way to communicate is by gestures and through training. This costs an action or bonus action to "encourage" the beast to do what you want it to do. A summoned creature usually speaks a language and therefor is easier to command although takes concentration, but I've had the wizard spend his actions once because he did not speak the language of the creature he summoned. With a familiar you can communicate telepathically, which is also quite easy, but I think WOTC should have kept the consequences for losing the familiar as in 3/3.5. You're bonded telepathically, if it dies you make a DC 15 check and if you fail you lose XP, and success reduces it by half. This is hard, but forces you to think about your familiar before you send it to distract, deal out touch attacks or distribute potions. Taking a familiar should be a carefully considered, not a must have spell/ritual. As it is now, everyone wants one to the point that there's a party of four and three get a familiar. We're not playing Pokemon. If something is wrong mechanically, I think it's the familiar.

[Kane0]

Beastmaster is a subclass. Find Steed is a 2nd level spell, Find Greater Steed a 4th and both are superior options. This annoys me.

[Tanarii]

You ninja you.

I deleted post, It was unnecessarily antagonistic.Nah, teasing based on long running positions well established & held doesn't bother me. Edited my post to respect your desires.

[djreynolds]

IMO, beastmaster can be a useful archetype.

If you consider that the beast is just another weapon/tool on your belt, there are plenty uses. At lower levels, a BM's beast can do some damage.

The new errata fixes 2 area, with magic attacks and dodge.

I wish shared spell came earlier, because level 15 is just so far off, you may never play it.

Shared feats/class abilities could be very cool.

The HP though is low though, and an increase in the beasts CR could be warranted. Even just CR 1.

And bonus spells, for an archetype who really needs them. The shield spell, like absorb elements would be cool to see in action.

[NaughtyTiger]

HR(m) +5 hit. 55% hit chance but with DW and horde breaker. That three chances to cause 1d6+3.
...
BM(m)time to rock! on on those goblins. 55% to hit 1d6+3x2 and wolf pack tactics means 65% chance hit for 8. Prone could get the ranger advantage as well but even weak goblins can pass DC 11 45% of the time. (DC need scaling...maybe half Prof bonus?)

So at lv 3 a BM in melee range can beat a hunter in damage by facing multiple weak enemies...by 2 damage a round.



If level 3 BM is using the attack action (and dual weilding) then the wolf pack tactics do not apply. And the wolf bonus action prone is not triggered.

a melee Hunter does 3x 1d6+3 (up to 19.5)
a melee BM does 2x 1d6+3 (up to 13)
or a BM pet as 2d4+4 (6.5) with +6toHit (this part is wow!)

[stoutstien]

If level 3 BM is using the attack action (and dual weilding) then the wolf pack tactics do not apply. And the wolf bonus action prone is not triggered.

a melee Hunter does 3x 1d6+3 (up to 19.5)
a melee BM does 2x 1d6+3 (up to 13)
or a BM pet as 2d4+4 (6.5) with +6toHit (this part is wow!)

I was assuming if we removed the action cost of BM pet attack by moving it to it's own initiative.
So 1d6+3 x 2 and the wolf attack 2d4+4 so roughly 19 damage vs the hunter. I was making the point allowing the pet to attack with independent action economy doesn't suddenly make it leap ahead in damage output.
I'm about halfway done with a full lv 3-20 head to head with my BM rework vs hunter with a extended spell list like xan options. Up to lv 17 and so far BM pet acting alone doesn't pull ahead til lv 15 with 4 attacks but only against 2 or fewer targets.

[Jerrykhor]

Sharing actions is so lame, totally defeats the purpose of having another creature. Also, usually the Ranger will have higher damage output, so the pet never attacks.

The errata doesn't fix the real problem at all. Rangers still have to press the attack button on their pet controller every round. Also, its a pathetic CR1/4 creature that doesn't scale to the Rangers level. 8h to magically bond? Bond doesn't feel magical at all, mechanically and figuratively speaking.

[Arkhios]

I've been unable to sit down and watch the video myself for an extended period of time, so I'm jumping into the thread a bit late. I didn't read the other posts so pardon me if things I'm about to say have been said already. This is purely my own perspective according to what I understood from Crawford.

First, I got a feeling that there might be more tweaks to beast master than just the two that were mentioned specifically at this time.

Second, even if there wasn't, the "auto-dodge" when not having been issued a command by the ranger might also include a slight change to how the issued command functions. For example, it's quite possible that issuing command could be changed to that once the ranger has given the beast companion a command to do X, the beast continues doing that from round to another, until given a new command. In fact, I might rule that it would do so, because to me that actually makes sense. A beast companion is an animal first, and a companion second. It's been trained to take commands from you, but as an animal, it's rather single-minded towards those commands, and it would, imho, obey the last command it has been given until it's been told otherwise.

The other tweak, regarding bypassing resistances, is simply awesome and definitely has a huge impact on the usefulness of the beast companion. A great improvement altogether, imho.

[Sahe]

People bring up Drizzt and his panther, but there are more beastmaster inspirations than that or at least things that may inspire a player to take beast master.

I think a big problem with beast master from a thematic standpoint is that you don't have it from Level 1. People that take Beastmaster, I think, don't want to tame some random animal they found in the woods. They want a buddy for life. A wolf cub they found in the woods with it's paw caught in a trap that they nursed back to life. And unless your campaign starts at lvl 3 it's hard to really sell that idea.

[Arkhios]

People bring up Drizzt and his panther, but there are more beastmaster inspirations than that or at least things that may inspire a player to take beast master.

I think a big problem with beast master from a thematic standpoint is that you don't have it from Level 1. People that take Beastmaster, I think, don't want to tame some random animal they found in the woods. They want a buddy for life. A wolf cub they found in the woods with it's paw caught in a trap that they nursed back to life. And unless your campaign starts at lvl 3 it's hard to really sell that idea.

Besides, it's been established from the start (in the novels no less) that Guenhwyvar is actually an astral beast summoned with a figurine. Drizzt is a poor example of a Beast Master ranger, because his companion is not even a natural creature.

If Drizzt really is a ranger, Hunter or Gloom Stalker is likely more appropriate.

[Sahe]

Besides, it's been established from the start (in the novels no less) that Guenhwyvar is actually an astral beast summoned with a figurine. Drizzt is a poor example of a Beast Master ranger, because his companion is not even a natural creature.

If Drizzt really is a ranger, Hunter or Gloom Stalker is likely more appropriate.

I think most people eyeing Beast Master are more likely to think of Jon Snow and Ghost and similar human/animal pairings found in media. It's a classic trope and the Beast Master doesn't deliver.

[NaughtyTiger]

I think most people eyeing Beast Master are more likely to think of Jon Snow and Ghost and similar human/animal pairings found in media. It's a classic trope and the Beast Master doesn't deliver.

To be fair, I was raised on the 80's movie, the Beastmaster. Thus, I really need a hawk, a panther, and 2 weasels.

[Specter]

"We need a debug mode."
- Invent spell remove fleas.

"Hey my beast died in the middle of an operation and I wasn't able to wait around or check its status."
- Add zombie child process rules.

"My beast is fine at low levels but at high levels I need more cool features."
- Add support for Firefox, Java-Python, and Fancy Bear.

Also this.

[Louro]

I'm playing a BM on ToA.

For me the main problem is that your beast feels just like a token on the battlefield. You have no way to communicate with it unless you pick a spell for it, and expend the slot.
Now, with hunter's mark you make more damage than the beast, so very little reason to use it aside from some tactical AOs. And then the problem replacing the beast, it takes time and can be a problem in time sensitive campaigns, if you find one. The beast cab also be a burden in some situations.

Too many cons that don't make for the very little the beast offers.
In adittion to the errata update I would give the beastmaster a spell list (speak with animals, beast sense...)

[rustythorn]

One of my players is planning on taking Beastmaster just to have a pet he can sic on his enemies and I'm just going to houserule the 'Attack action' bit as an 'attack order', ie. the beast is autonomous but needs to be given rough directions to attack, without needing to be micromanaged each round.


I had the same thought having it follow last command with the new errata will make a good class, however, 1st lv ranger is still the worst, you have a hard time telling it apart from a commoner

"i'm an adventure really, i'm a bad ass fighter really really. sure I don't have any special abilities until 2nd level and I can't use real armor but..."

I would also give a the ranger one druid cantrip at 1st level.

[KorvinStarmast]

The Ranger still sucks. My gloom stalker disagrees with you.

Also, BM in a campaign where you end up sleeping in a dungeon or in a wilderness area has a watch dog/alarm.


Just sayin' ...

[ProsecutorGodot]

My gloom stalker disagrees with you.

Also, BM in a campaign where you end up sleeping in a dungeon or in a wilderness area has a watch dog/alarm.

Just sayin' ...

Gloom Stalker is very powerful, but it's also incredibly front loaded. After 7th level I don't see a whole lot of incentive not to multiclass out of Ranger (if your table allows multiclassing). I'd stay until 13th level at the absolute latest for Greater Invisibility, if that's something you place a lot of value in. Other than spell slot progression, you gain almost nothing of value from level 7-14. That's again dependant on how valuable you consider spell slot progression to be on Ranger.

I think that Rangers fall into a similar problem to Warlocks, where there are very powerful class features early on and underwhelming or downright terrible features later. Warlocks at least have the benefit of Eldritch Invocations and full casting progression. Rangers have it worse than Warlocks as none of the Warlock subclasses are blatantly terrible, whereas Beast Master is obviously an inferior (but not unplayable) subclass on a class that is already lacking in powerful base class features.

This is of course, just my opinion on things, it could be totally off base.

And just so I don't come across as someone who can only say negative things about Rangers, I think that Zephyr Strike and Steel Wind Strike are incredibly cool spells and I've often considered building a Horizon Walker Ranger for a teleporting marauder build.

[MaxWilson]

People bring up Drizzt and his panther, but there are more beastmaster inspirations than that or at least things that may inspire a player to take beast master.

I think a big problem with beast master from a thematic standpoint is that you don't have it from Level 1. People that take Beastmaster, I think, don't want to tame some random animal they found in the woods. They want a buddy for life. A wolf cub they found in the woods with it's paw caught in a trap that they nursed back to life. And unless your campaign starts at lvl 3 it's hard to really sell that idea.

Nothing prevents you from having a beast buddy at level one. You just don't have any class features that give it bonuses yet. In fact that's what's so offensive about the current PHB rules: your beast buddy actually gets dumber and shows less initiative once you become a Beastmaster, which is not the ideal flavor.

[Kane0]

I'd like to see how elegantly I can make 'You get Find Steed but X' for the beastmaster, in the same vein as the Chainlock has 'You get Find Familiar but Y'

EG You get Find Steed (recharges on short rest) but you get a Beast of CR 1/2, HP scales with your Ranger level and shares spells via touch instead of while mounted
Then later levels gives it extra benefits like prof to attack/damage/defences and eventually an upgrade to Find Greater Steed

[MaxWilson]

Other than spell slot progression, you gain almost nothing of value from level 7-14. That's again dependant on how valuable you consider spell slot progression to be on Ranger.

Conjure Animals at 9 is fantastic.

11th level is a quasi third attack. A Sharpshooter/Crossbow Expert Gloomstalker 11 has the next best thing to 4 attacks per round (since the odds of you hitting with three attacks in a row is quite low, you will almost always make that fourth attack), 5 on the first round, and he still gets spells like Conjure Animals (free meat shields!), Healing Spirit, Pass Without Trace, Rope Trick, and Spike Growth on top. It's excellent. If you roll high stats, Gloomstalkers are arguably better archers than even Eldritch Knights.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Conjure Animals at 9 is fantastic.

11th level is a quasi third attack. A Sharpshooter/Crossbow Expert Gloomstalker 11 has the next best thing to 4 attacks per round (since the odds of you hitting with three attacks in a row is quite low, you will almost always make that fourth attack), 5 on the first round, and he still gets spells like Conjure Animals (free meat shields!), Healing Spirit, Pass Without Trace, Rope Trick, and Spike Growth on top. It's excellent. If you roll high stats, Gloomstalkers are arguably better archers than even Eldritch Knights.

That's why I made a point to mention spell slot progression, as Ranger's do get access to some pretty useful spells. However if your ideal Ranger build doesn't make much use of those spells then you're not gaining a lot.

Gloom Stalkers are very good archers though. That poor Green Dragon had no idea what he got himself into trying to fly up to our ship into a 10th level Gloom Stalker/Battlemaster.

Gloom Stalkers are an outlier though, on the opposite end of Beast Masters.

[djreynolds]

Besides, it's been established from the start (in the novels no less) that Guenhwyvar is actually an astral beast summoned with a figurine. Drizzt is a poor example of a Beast Master ranger, because his companion is not even a natural creature.

If Drizzt really is a ranger, Hunter or Gloom Stalker is likely more appropriate.


I think most people eyeing Beast Master are more likely to think of Jon Snow and Ghost and similar human/animal pairings found in media. It's a classic trope and the Beast Master doesn't deliver.


To be fair, I was raised on the 80's movie, the Beastmaster. Thus, I really need a hawk, a panther, and 2 weasels.

I just consider the beast like a sword on my belt, its a tool to be used, and if it dies, I get another. I'm not sure if this was intended.

Its is cool to be able to switch beasts to fit the environment, if I'm going to the caves I find a bat, or maybe there is an underground river and I grab a giant crab. Maybe I need a hawk because I need to scout ahead. This allows for credible flexibility.

But what happens to the wolf I have had for 5 games, does it just go off? Does it retain its bonuses?

But the CR is limiting, if I'm in a swamp I can get a frog, but I cannot get an alligator. Obviously the DM could fix it and just give my an alligator with giant frog stats. That to me is a real limitation

Now that's a thought, if rangers could have multiple beasts at once.

I think players want a beast that progresses and changes and evolves as the ranger levels up. The revised ranger, which we will never get, could be cool if the beast's intelligence was the stat that was raised. This would really show growth that players are looking for.

I would like it if shared spell came earlier, and bonus spells like shield and warding bond.

[Xetheral]

I'd like to see how elegantly I can make 'You get Find Steed but X' for the beastmaster, in the same vein as the Chainlock has 'You get Find Familiar but Y'

EG You get Find Steed (recharges on short rest) but you get a Beast of CR 1/2, HP scales with your Ranger level and shares spells via touch instead of while mounted
Then later levels gives it extra benefits like prof to attack/damage/defences and eventually an upgrade to Find Greater Steed

This looks like a very promising idea, and I'm curious to see what you come up with.

[Zalabim]

or a +x bow or any magical sword or ...
I was not aware that getting a magical weapon was a class feature for hunter rangers. Did I miss an errata?

[Specter]

I just consider the beast like a sword on my belt, its a tool to be used, and if it dies, I get another. I'm not sure if this was intended.

Probably not, but there have been so many new releases since and they couldn't be bothered to create a revive beast spell, so who knows.

[BobZan]

I think the beast should have some sort of progression. I liked the ASI and hit die approach on UA.

[Tanarii]

Gloom Stalker is very powerful, but it's also incredibly front loaded.
This is generally true of non-Spellcasting feature classes though. 5e classes aren't particularly balanced around the optional multiclassing rule.

The Gloom Stalker is a probably a little bit more so than other non-Spellcasting feature classes. But it's a general trend in 5e.


If level 3 BM is using the attack action (and dual weilding) then the wolf pack tactics do not apply. And the wolf bonus action prone is not triggered.

a melee Hunter does 3x 1d6+3 (up to 19.5)
a melee BM does 2x 1d6+3 (up to 13)
or a BM pet as 2d4+4 (6.5) with +6toHit (this part is wow!)

Lol bad math will "prove" anything.

Some considerations:
- if you're doing math, always do DPR, not just damage numbers
- Assuming hoard breaker is ridiculous, it's hard to get.
- Wolf typically has advantage and it's easy to get with the ranger
- so does the ranger for her attack (level 5+) if the target goes prone
- Beastmaster rangers are strongly incentivized to either go 2H and defense or S&B with dueling. Unless the tactic is to unload with TWF if they somehow stay prone instead of getting up on their turn, it's usually better for your companion to attack and you take get one big hit on top of it.

Given advantage and typically a 1-2pt higher hit chance early on, the wolf is typically more DPR than TWF alone. Plus a chance to knock prone.

[NaughtyTiger]

I was not aware that getting a magical weapon was a class feature for hunter rangers. Did I miss an errata?

You are correct, magical weapon was not a class feature for hunters, but neither are silvered weapons.
It is extremely common that within T2 martials will acquire a magical weapon.

you excluded team efforts in a team game and spells for a caster:

With the team efforts, a forge cleric or wiz can provide one.
With ranger spells, ranger weapons can do magic damage.



There is no equivalent way to provide magic damage to a beast. (aside from insignia as you mentioned)

also as you mentioned, JC ruled that magic weapon spell doesn't apply to beasts
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/739189463188799488

i guess you could silver claw...

[Misterwhisper]

My only issue with Beastmaster was that the animal companion need more hit points.

[MaxWilson]

You are correct, magical weapon was not a class feature for hunters, but neither are silvered weapons.
It is extremely common that within T2 martials will acquire a magical weapon.

It is also extremely common for warriors not to be able to count on getting a magic weapon, and especially not a magic weapon of their favored type.

Just look at the Xanathar's "major" magic item tables. You are expected to get only a handful of "major" magic items over the course of your career, and all magical weapons are classified as major. If you roll on the DMG tables your Dex-based ranger may not find a magical rapier at all--maybe he finds a magical mace. A beastmaster ranger hoping for a magic weapon his beast can wield is even more of a corner case.

From a mechanical perspective, letting a Beastmaster's trusted animal companion be at least as effective against werewolves and demons as one of the disposable wolves/snakes/etc. that a Shepherd Druid whistles up with 1/8 of a 3rd level spell slot seems like a no-brainer. (It's hard to justify in terms of world logic why a ranger's pet snake can hurt werewolves now and the ranger himself can't, but that world logic ship sailed for 5E a long time ago. 5E is first and foremost a gamist CAS game.)

[Sception]

I'd like to see how elegantly I can make 'You get Find Steed but X' for the beastmaster, in the same vein as the Chainlock has 'You get Find Familiar but Y'

EG You get Find Steed (recharges on short rest) but you get a Beast of CR 1/2, HP scales with your Ranger level and shares spells via touch instead of while mounted
Then later levels gives it extra benefits like prof to attack/damage/defences and eventually an upgrade to Find Greater Steed

Honestly, walock pact boons aren't really on the level of a subclass. Imagine an option to trade your patron for a second boon - you'd never do it. Patron is an actual subclass with multiple significant features coming at various levels, like a subclass. Boon is a set of thematic but mostly relatively minor options that you pick one of.

What I'm saying is, basing a version of the beastmaster subclass on the chain boon pact feature probably isn't going to lead to successful results.

A better alternative would probably be designing new ranger spells 'Beast Companion' and 'Greater Beast Companion', based on the find steed spells, and then just removing the beastmaster subclass altogether. Want to play a beastmaster? sure, memorize and cast those spells, while still being a hunter or gloom stalker or whatever.


Sure, it moves the beast master even further from being a proper pet class, but I don't think any subclass will work there. The ideal of a pet class character should be channeling all or at least a significant portion of their actions and abilities through the pet. That's honestly not something that can just be stapled onto a class as a subclass. It really needs a dedicated class of its own to flourish, so that character defining core class features can be written to assume the existence of the pet.

Sort of how 4e's shaman was actually rather successful pet class implementation, where 4e's beastmaster was also... underwhelming, to put it charitably.

[Kane0]

My current thinking is if 1st level is a scout and 2nd level is a mount, then a +1 under your control that can attack should be a 3rd.

Familiar: 1st level, cannot attack but can act independantly, delivers spells, must be tiny/small
Mount: 2nd level, cannot attack or act independantly, shares spells when mounted, must be larger than caster
Companion: 3rd level, can attack and act independantly (regular attack action only, no multiattack), shares spells by touch, no size limitation

I'd also houserule that the 'one at a time' rule applies across all three instead of one each though it would rarely come up.

Make it a Ranger and Druid spell that Beastmasters get at 3rd level once per short or long rest. This means BMs get it first, then Druids at 5, then Bards pinching it at 6, then regular rangers at 9. We can use standard upcasting for a bit of scaling instead of having better versions of the same spell (ie Find Greater Steed). Other Beastmaster features (and Chainlock Invocations come to think of it) add extra benefits like extra HP and +Prof to attack/damage, Magical/multi attacks, a free cast as a reaction when it drops to 0 HP, etc

Work in progress however

[KorvinStarmast]

Gloom Stalker is very powerful, but it's also incredibly front loaded. Ranger as a whole class seems to me, in general, to be front loaded.


After 7th level I don't see a whole lot of incentive not to multiclass out of Ranger (if your table allows multiclassing).
Level 11 "I can attack again if I miss" is really handy. (Particularly if you have the Sharpshooter feat ...)


I'd stay until 13th level at the absolute latest for Greater Invisibility, if that's something you place a lot of value in.
Depends on the group.

Other than spell slot progression, you gain almost nothing of value from level 7-14. See above, I do not agree, and neither does the level 11 gloomstalker in our group.

That's again dependant on how valuable you consider spell slot progression to be on Ranger. Picking spells for a Ranger is an art, and we have found that it really depends on group composition.
I think that Rangers fall into a similar problem to Warlocks, where there are very powerful class features early on and underwhelming or downright terrible features later. I think that's a fair critique, in a general sense.

I think that Zephyr Strike and Steel Wind Strike are incredibly cool spells and I've often considered building a Horizon Walker Ranger for a teleporting marauder build.Zephyr Strike is a neat spell, but in my ranger play it competes with Hunter's Mark for in application. I think it fits a melee ranger better than a bow ranger.

[ad_hoc]

I really wish they wouldn't. There is very little wrong with the PHB ranger, and even less wrong with the PHB Beastmaster. It is a powerful subclass with a class feature that perfectly gives a mechanical feel to match the flavor of "beast and man fight in tandem".

More to the point, sweeping changes should never be errata. The only thing that should change the PHB drastically. is a new edition. If they want to publish an optional revised Ranger for the people crying for one, do that. Don't "errata" the PHB. That just gives lie to the idea of an evergreen PHB.

Agreed. People often forget that Hunter doesn't have a lot of power either. I would rather have the beast than 1d8 damage.

I wouldn't mind some errata that makes sense though. Beasts having short rest hit dice recovery and death saves would be fine. It's not stated that they do, but it also doesn't state that they don't and it is a default thing.

[NaughtyTiger]

A beastmaster ranger hoping for a magic weapon his beast can wield is even more of a corner case.

From a mechanical perspective, letting a Beastmaster's trusted animal companion be at least as effective against werewolves and demons as one of the disposable wolves/snakes/etc. that a Shepherd Druid whistles up with 1/8 of a 3rd level spell slot seems like a no-brainer. (It's hard to justify in terms of world logic why a ranger's pet snake can hurt werewolves now and the ranger himself can't, but that world logic ship sailed for 5E a long time ago. 5E is first and foremost a gamist CAS game.)

wait, I think we are in agreement about BM's pet. They should be able to do magic damage, even if it is with a spell.

I got distracted by your Hunter's can't do magic damage without: magic weapon, team abilities, or spells.
Since that is true for pally, barb, and ranger, and fighter, I interpreted that as the BM pet is just fine.

[Xetheral]

5E is first and foremost a gamist CAS game.)

I object! Actually, wait, no I don't... I just wish I could. The fact that I am able to run a simultation-heavy CAW game with 5e doesn't actually prove your claim is wrong.

[rustythorn]

as pointed out earlier, the paladins find steed and greater steed provide as good if not better animal compaions than the ranger's beastmaster, however, i just realized the bard is even better[worse], since they can learn find greater steed at 10th level with magical secrets and if you can delay a level then a pencil necked lore bard could get a CR 2 creature at 7th level, suck it beastmaster.

[Nifft]

as pointed out earlier, the paladins find steed and greater steed provide as good if not better animal compaions than the ranger's beastmaster, however, i just realized the bard is even better[worse], since they can learn find greater steed at 10th level with magical secrets and if you can delay a level then a pencil necked lore bard could get a CR 2 creature at 7th level, suck it beastmaster. Indeed.

Beats Master > Beastmaster

[Rowan Wolf]

Ranger as a whole class seems to me, in general, to be front loaded.


Front loaded with ribbons maybe.

[Unoriginal]

Front loaded with ribbons maybe.

-bond with animals
-good in an outdoor setting
-load of ribbons
-can accomplish great things despite people saying they can't/shouldn't even try

So Ranger is basically the Disney Princess class.

[Naanomi]

So Ranger is basically the Disney Princess class.
Celestial/Archfey Warlocks with a funny chain-Companion are clearly the Disney Princess

[Unoriginal]

Celestial/Archfey Warlocks with a funny chain-Companion are clearly the Disney Princess

That's the Magical Girl.

[Tanarii]

I object! Actually, wait, no I don't... I just wish I could. The fact that I am able to run a simultation-heavy CAW game with 5e doesn't actually prove your claim is wrong.I mean, his claim is clearly wrong insofar as D&D editions go, on a scale of D&D. 5e is the least CaS oriented of the last 3 editions. But it's FAR more CaS oriented than 1e / Classic. And more so that pre-C&T 2e.

I also use 5e for a CaW game, which at its most basic is defined there being no expectation PCs will win any given combat. Although it generally strongly associated with strong player agency in regards to deciding what to do and where to go (often mistakenly called a sandbox).

[MaxWilson]

I object! Actually, wait, no I don't... I just wish I could. The fact that I am able to run a simultation-heavy CAW game with 5e doesn't actually prove your claim is wrong.

I wish I could too. Like you, I've used 5E for simulationist CAW, and it works okay once you actually build your simulation-heavy CAW ruleset... but you wind up inventing 60-80% of the rule system yourself, and there are still gamist CAS warts from the base 5E ruleset (e.g. lots of game features from Revivify to Find Steed/Find Familiar which are all designed to ensure that long-term consequences just aren't a thing and gameplay is episodic, which rules out all kinds of scenarios) that you have to either change or live with.

For instance, "finding an injured warrior in the woods, wounded from a fight with a dragon, and nursing him back to health or completing his mission for him" just isn't a thing if the the warrior can heal back to full health after only an hour's rest by "spending HD". In this case, simulationism (taking the system seriously) implies that you have to either change the rules or play out their consequences: in this case that means this story hook cannot produce any dramatic tension/isn't usable as a story hook.

There are some positive consequences of this ruleset as well, such as explaining why large predators in 5E are so aggressive compared to real-world animals--it's because real-world animals have to worry about the possibility of getting long-term injuries while hunting, which leads to subsequent starvation. In 5E, as long as the T-Rex wins the fight with the armored knight, it's going to get a meal and be fine. No long-term consequences--it can eat armored knights pretty much as much as it wants so it makes sense for it to attack armored knights on sight.

[Louro]

[New] Ranger’s Companion (p. 93).
The following sentence has been added to the end of the first paragraph: “Like any creature, the beast can spend Hit Dice during a shor t rest.”

A new third paragraph has been inserted: “If you are incapacitated or absent, the beast acts on its own, focusing on protecting you and itself. The beast never requires your command to use its reaction, such as when making an opportunity attack .”
In the second sentence of the second paragraph, the phrase that begins “though it doesn’t take ...” has been deleted.
In the third sentence of the second paragraph, “Dodge,” has been deleted. After that sentence, this one is added: “If you don’t issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action.”


[New] Exceptional Training (p. 93).
“Dodge,” has been deleted. Another sentence has been added: “In addition, the beast’s attacks now count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.”

Bestial Fury (p. 93).
This section has been changed to “Starting at 11th level, when you command your beast companion to take the Attack action, the beast can make two attacks, or it can take the Multi attack action if it has that action.

Auto dodge increases survivavility a bit (advantage vs fireballs). Being able to protect himself when you are knocked down was really needed.

[Xetheral]

I mean, his claim is clearly wrong insofar as D&D editions go, on a scale of D&D. 5e is the least CaS oriented of the last 3 editions. But it's FAR more CaS oriented than 1e / Classic. And more so that pre-C&T 2e.

I also use 5e for a CaW game, which at its most basic is defined there being no expectation PCs will win any given combat. Although it generally strongly associated with strong player agency in regards to deciding what to do and where to go (often mistakenly called a sandbox).

Interestingly, I would define CAW, at its most basic, as the expectation that characters and antagonists will make use of off-sheet resources to influence the outcome of combats. By contrast, I would define CAS, at its most basic, as the expectation that characters and antagonists will make use only of resources on their character sheets/statblocks. In CAS, therefore, the parameters of a fight are defined by the rules of the game and the personal capabilities of the combatants, as if it were a sporting match. (Hence the "sport" in "combat-as-sport".) In CAW, the parameters of a fight are bounded only by the creativity and deviousness of the participants, as if it were a war. (Hence the "war" in "combat-as-war".) The fact that CAW less often includes the expectation that the PCs will be victorious I consider an important consequence of this distinction, rather than the definition.

(I'm not trying to suggest you don't understand the distinction between CAW and CAS. I'm only explaining how and why I would characterize that distinction differently.)

Of the last three editions, I see 3.5 as offering the most support for games that emphasize CAW over CAS. I prefer 5e for other reasons, but I see the relative dearth of crunch as requiring a CAW DM to expend more effort to appear impartial when making on-the-fly rulings regarding off-character-sheet actions. Similarly, the existence of both short-rest based classes and long-rest based classes requires extra effort on the part of a CAW DM to make sure that all the players get to use their abilities at an enjoyable rate, even though players have more control over the encounter rate (via off-sheet resources) than they do in a CAS style. (Which is one facet of the increased player agency you mention as being associated with CAW.)

Admittedly, that last point might be a personal bias rather than evidence of where 5e comes up short on CAW support. I find tactical resource management (i.e. rationing power usage across encounters) to be utterly uninteresting. I'm much more interested in strategic resource management (i.e. allocating resources amongst competing goals). In other words, I care a lot more about how resources are used rather than when resources are used. 5e's short-rest/long-rest class dichotomy forces me to pay attention to tactical resource management rather than just leaving it as an organic consequence of strategic resource management.


I wish I could too. Like you, I've used 5E for simulationist CAW, and it works okay once you actually build your simulation-heavy CAW ruleset... but you wind up inventing 60-80% of the rule system yourself, and there are still gamist CAS warts from the base 5E ruleset (e.g. lots of game features from Revivify to Find Steed/Find Familiar which are all designed to ensure that long-term consequences just aren't a thing and gameplay is episodic, which rules out all kinds of scenarios) that you have to either change or live with.

I tend to focus on off-character-sheet consequences, so the types of spells you mention aren't really obstacle in my games. The svelte ruleset, however--while responsible for many of the things I love about 5e--does get in my way at times. My largest CAW-related gripe (other than the short-rest/long-rest class dichotomy described above) remains the lack of economic detail in the rules.

For example, in my campaign world (which dates to 3.0) in the largest city there is a massive open-air market that was a reliable (if not cheap or quick) way to find just about anything one might want. Since adopting 5e I've kept my campaigns to the periphery of my game world partially because I haven't yet finished translating to 5e my 3.5-era market mechanics that relied on Gather Information (gone in 5e) and a published list of base prices for both mundane and magical goods (insufficiently detailed/consistent in 5e). Yes, the prices in 3.5 were somewhat inconsistent themselves, but it was easier to tweak existing values than make up my own. I've tried importing 3.5 prices wholesale into 5e, but since none of my players have any of those books (and the prices are scattered across so many books), it's not very useful.

Economics play a critical role in CAW as cash is the quickest and most reliable way to obtain off-character-sheet resources, but 5e's insufficiently-detailed economy rules work best at small scale and aren't up to representing the PCs interactions with a high-liquidity environment such as is found in my world's great market. That's frustrating, but not a dealbreaker for me.

[ZorroGames]

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/11/01/ranger-beast-master-errata-will-add-new-features-to-your-animal-companion/

Per Crawford, they are going to add a (scant)few changes.

Your beast's attacks will count as magical at some point.
If un-commanded the beast will take the Dodge action.

Still does not let me play Hosteen Storm in a Fantasy Setting. THAT is my iconic Beast Master model.

Why not add a second Beast at high levels? Screw “Drizzled on”, his scimitars, and the Panther - I want Surra and Baku type creatures. Hing and Ho would be icing on the cake!

[Arkhios]

Still does not let me play Hosteen Storm in a Fantasy Setting. THAT is my iconic Beast Master model.

Why not add a second Beast at high levels? Screw “Drizzled on”, his scimitars, and the Panther - I want Surra and Baku type creatures. Hing and Ho would be icing on the cake!

As I've said before (maybe here, maybe elsewhere) Drizzt is unlikely to be a Beast Master at all since the panther has always been summoned by a figurine, and is not a natural creature at all. Personally, I wouldn't talk about Drizzt and Beast Master in a same sentence as if he was one (if he even is a ranger I'd say Hunter is more likely, and frankly, its features fit a lot better, though a case could be made for Champion Fighter as well).