Beastmaster Ranger to be Errata-cized

[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. :P

I'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)

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.