Most beast attacks are mediocre when compared to the Ranger's attacks (or any other class) and as the ranger levels, the gap only gets wider. I have not found it to be game breaking to just let the beast have it's own actions as though it were a separate entity instead of just another class feature. Survivability is an issue that can be mitigated through armor and other items. Also, should the DM be kind (like myself), you may even come across the occasional magic item specifically made for beasts such as barding, collars and such.
Tashas "fixed it"....unless you want to cast bonus action spells for your attack..
again both have merit and both have downsides to play around with.
If you want to do something else with your bonus action and have the pet attack, you still can. You can sacrifice one of your attacks to have the pet attack too. It's just like the old beast master pet except with more hit points and better action economy. It's better in every way. Tasha's took one of the poorest designed subclasses in the game and made it one of the better ranger subclasses and I really don't understand how anyone could argue otherwise.
Tashas "fixed it"....unless you want to cast bonus action spells for your attack..
again both have merit and both have downsides to play around with.
If you want to do something else with your bonus action and have the pet attack, you still can. You can sacrifice one of your attacks to have the pet attack too. It's just like the old beast master pet except with more hit points and better action economy. It's better in every way. Tasha's took one of the poorest designed subclasses in the game and made it one of the better ranger subclasses and I really don't understand how anyone could argue otherwise.
Sure enough, Tasha's fixed a subclass that was poorly designed. Now the beastmaster is a well-designed subclass, which works fine. The PHB beastmaster is out of date. There is no reason to prefer that design, when it is objectively very bad. And the sample is that they fixed it later, something very unusual in this edition of D&D. They fixed it simply because they recognized that it was a mistake. Which is welcome, because thematically it's a classic D&D archetype that couldn't be represented by such a poorly designed subclass.
Tashas "fixed it"....unless you want to cast bonus action spells for your attack..
again both have merit and both have downsides to play around with.
From Tasha's Cauldron of Everything (emphasis mine):
In combat, the beast acts during your turn. [The Primal Companion] can move and use its reaction on its own, but the only action it takes is the Dodge action, unless you take a bonus action on your turn to command it to take another action. That action can be one in its stat block or some other action. You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Attack action.
So while it is more limited in what it can do on your action, you can still free up your Bonus Action and command it at the same time.
While Lehrer is correct in action economy. I Had never seen any Tasha's beast master use the replacement attack, so I was led to believe the main action version was inferior that was my fault for incorrect info.
However to believe the tashas is superior in always is a false statement.
There are several main factors.
1. sever loss of utility options(blind sight, Poison harvesting, unique creature traits, ect)
2 Tasha's beast cannot act independent of the ranger . NO scouting sorry. NO watching the cart, room, ect.
3. While Tasha's beasts get more HP the "Hits till dead" ratio rarely goes up because of CR and damage scaling.(up to where most campaigns end)
4. PHB beasmaster scales with PB instead of stats or levels.(except HP) .So, Better for non wisdom multiclass. Especially, if its used as a "Familiar replacement" over combatant.
5. Controversial: "Pet death loophole" and "free action loopholes(search and hide and use an object are "free" commands)" but with dm's that support these rulings PHB beastmaster has perfectly fine functionality.
While Lehrer is correct in action economy. I Had never seen any Tasha's beast master use the replacement attack, so I was led to believe the main action version was inferior that was my fault for incorrect info.
You actually saw me use it against some spoopy skeletons - that was the mechanism by which I would throw a net, issue a beast order, and shoot my hand crossbow (the net stops a second attack but not a Primal order, and I used CBE to shoot my hand crossbow as a bonus action thanks to throwing the net).
However to believe the tashas is superior in always is a false statement.
There are several main factors.
1. sever loss of utility options(blind sight, Poison harvesting, unique creature traits, ect)
This is absolutely potentially significant. While the Primal Companion gains some incredibly useful abilities, like proficiency bonus added to all ability checks, you sacrifice a wide array of potential traits you could have found by shopping around with the Beast Companion.
2 Tasha's beast cannot act independent of the ranger . NO scouting sorry. NO watching the cart, room, ect.
Yes it can. In fact, in our game, I had my monkey act independently of me, remember?
In fact, unless I'm missing something, the Primal Companion action restrictions are strictly less than the Beast Companion restrictions.
3. While Tasha's beasts get more HP the "Hits till dead" ratio rarely goes up because of CR and damage scaling.(up to where most campaigns end)
Well, it's challenging to get into a deep dive on this without settling the unsolvable question of whether the Beast Companion gets your PB on all saves or all saves it's proficient in, because WOTC doesn't know how to use unambiguous grammar.
4. PHB beasmaster scales with PB instead of stats or levels.(except HP) .So, Better for non wisdom multiclass. Especially, if its used as a "Familiar replacement" over combatant.
The only places the Primal Companion uses Wisdom are the attack roll, Land save DC, and Water escape DC, and both companions use your Ranger level for hit points. If you're going for a non-combatant, the Primal Companion (model: probably Air) will in particular outperform the Beast Companion at most tasks due to universal pseudo-proficiency.
5. Controversial: "Pet death loophole" and "free action loopholes(search and hide and use an object are "free" commands)" but with dm's that support these rulings PHB beastmaster has perfectly fine functionality.
I'm not saying the Primal Beastmaster is particularly overpowered or balanced (and in fact I will explicitly state that the Primal Companion has some serious problems your DM will need to fix to render it playable), but I agree with Lehrer that the PHB Beastmaster's biggest problem is action economy woes - letting people either order their companion actionlessly or with a bonus action (depending on desired balance) should always have been the standard since the PHB dropped with Animate Dead and Animate Objects (and for actionlessly, Conjure Animals).
2 Tasha's beast cannot act independent of the ranger . NO scouting sorry. NO watching the cart, room, ect.
Yes it can. In fact, in our game, I had my monkey act independently of me, remember?
In fact, unless I'm missing something, the Primal Companion action restrictions are strictly less than the Beast companion restrictions.
The game establishes the beast can only act without commands if the ranger is incapacited. The phb ranger has "absent" added. Tasha's doesn't get actions while ranger is absent. It must dogde.
2 Tasha's beast cannot act independent of the ranger . NO scouting sorry. NO watching the cart, room, ect.
Yes it can. In fact, in our game, I had my monkey act independently of me, remember?
In fact, unless I'm missing something, the Primal Companion action restrictions are strictly less than the Beast companion restrictions.
The game establishes the beast can only act without commands if the ranger is incapacited. The phb ranger has "absent" added. Tasha's doesn't get actions while ranger is absent. It must dogde.
Specifies "in combat".
In combat, the beast acts during your turn. [...]
RAW if the primal companion encounters an enemy while exploring, it could still fight spending your bonus action even if you're absent (it doesn't say anything about you having to be present for that. It also doesn't say you command it verbally). In fact that "absent" in the Ranger's companion exists because it specifies that your command must be verbal (even to move), which would make exploration impossible without freedom when you are absent. On the other hand, it also tells you that it focuses on protecting you and itself, which can be interpreted in strange ways by the DM if you use it to explore.
The primal companion doesn't have those problems, because you only have those restrictions in combat, and doesn't need verbal commands.
Any dm that allows bonus action commands from beyond communication distance would also allow phb beastmaster full or functionality and all its implications.
But even with the loose interpretation, the fact that it can't switch from scouting to "in combat" is also a huge hindrance.
And nit picks of just one of my points still won't disprove the value of using phb ranger companions in a post tasha's world.
Both are needed and the new design trades off some of functionality, flavor and practicality.
I don't like to be so blunt, but you're not right. The PHB beast master is very bad. It wrecks your action economy, and makes you unable to play it the way it's supposed to. It is one of the worst subclasses in the game. I think there is consensus on that, except for someone who wants to discuss the obvious for some reason. There must be everything in the world.
However, Tasha's beast master is very good. It's well designed, and works the way it's supposed to.
I see no reason to play the PHB beast master, and the arguments you've made so far fall apart. You are simply wrong and do not want to admit it. Well, okay.
One thing I think a lot of people forget is that you can equip your beast companion. A big difference between the PHB companion and the Tasha's companion is how the AC is calculated. Equipping the Tasha's companion with armor would overwrite its AC with a different AC calculation, but the PHB companion gets a bonus to its AC. So a giant crab companion equipped with a Belt of Giant Strength and plate barding would be a pretty effective tank with its ability to grapple multiple targets and its 30ft blindsight.
Is the Tasha's companion better? In combat, generally yes. But the PHB companion can be good if you have access to good equipment, are creative, or use it for role play and exploration rather than combat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Another thing I haven't seen mentioned here yet (though I didn't read the full first 3 pages to be fair) is that with the PHB version if your companion dies you are potentially going to struggle a LOT to get a new good one. This was (and still is) a huge problem with the PHB version too since while there are pretty good companion options they aren't necessarily things you encounter that often in most campaigns. Heck, depending on the campaign you might be traveling in the completely wrong environment so without some serious detour or downtime investment it'd require some serious handwaving of the DM to give you the same kind of beast again.Plus it takes 8 hours and potential skill checks you can fail to make sure it's not hostile to you ... which also might take up even more time. Basically a full adventuring day to get a new beast and potentially a lot more if you need to travel to the right environment to find a specific one first. Meanwhile with Tasha's version you just spend a spell slot to summon a new one of the type you want within 1 minute and call it a day.
There are plenty of options for dealing with pet companion's death both preventative and post death. It's a non-issue if you plan and work as a team.
As for Adding requirements for bonding that aren’t In the text is deliberately hampering the discussion and the subclass.
Not to mention having death stakes makes for better narrative and set's up the party for softer blows when the eventual loss of other party members happens.
There are plenty of options for dealing with pet companion's death both preventative and post death. It's a non-issue if you plan and work as a team.
As for Adding requirements for bonding that aren’t In the text is deliberately hampering the discussion and the subclass.
Not to mention having death stakes makes for better narrative and set's up the party for softer blows when the eventual loss of other party members happens.
8 hours without your subclass is hard to plan around I think...
Overall its a lot less flexible in that sense than Tasha's which may not work as well out of combat...but then again I would not be sending my weak pet to scout anyway as a PHB ranger as it would likely be killed fast anyway.
For general scouting a familar is generally better anyway. I do not really see a use for the companion outside of combat that isn't done better than a 1st level wizard spell
One thing I think a lot of people forget is that you can equip your beast companion. A big difference between the PHB companion and the Tasha's companion is how the AC is calculated. Equipping the Tasha's companion with armor would overwrite its AC with a different AC calculation, but the PHB companion gets a bonus to its AC. So a giant crab companion equipped with a Belt of Giant Strength and plate barding would be a pretty effective tank with its ability to grapple multiple targets and its 30ft blindsight.
Is the Tasha's companion better? In combat, generally yes. But the PHB companion can be good if you have access to good equipment, are creative, or use it for role play and exploration rather than combat.
But that's a bit situational, isn't it? I mean, being able to equip your creature with a magic item is like a letter to Santa Claus.
On the other hand it seems to me that you are arguing that the beast companion is better than the primal companion for exploration and roleplaying. Why's that? What reason is there to argue that? I don't see what mechanical advantage the beast companion has that makes it a better scout (unless you mean you can choose a specific creature). Regarding the roleplay, there is no mechanic that is worth. It depends on how the player handles it. So I don't see why it's going to be superior in that regard.
And finally, D&D is a game focused on combat. I think at this point it's silly to have to remember that. Can you play games focused on something else? Of course, as a child I also played soccer with my sister's volleyball. But by design that ball was better for playing volleyball. So, in a game focused on combat, it is normal that an archetype (subclass in this case) that makes you fight worse is considered bad.
One thing I think a lot of people forget is that you can equip your beast companion. A big difference between the PHB companion and the Tasha's companion is how the AC is calculated. Equipping the Tasha's companion with armor would overwrite its AC with a different AC calculation, but the PHB companion gets a bonus to its AC. So a giant crab companion equipped with a Belt of Giant Strength and plate barding would be a pretty effective tank with its ability to grapple multiple targets and its 30ft blindsight.
Is the Tasha's companion better? In combat, generally yes. But the PHB companion can be good if you have access to good equipment, are creative, or use it for role play and exploration rather than combat.
But that's a bit situational, isn't it? I mean, being able to equip your creature with a magic item is like a letter to Santa Claus.
On the other hand it seems to me that you are arguing that the beast companion is better than the primal companion for exploration and roleplaying. Why's that? What reason is there to argue that? I don't see what mechanical advantage the beast companion has that makes it a better scout (unless you mean you can choose a specific creature). Regarding the roleplay, there is no mechanic that is worth. It depends on how the player handles it. So I don't see why it's going to be superior in that regard.
And finally, D&D is a game focused on combat. I think at this point it's silly to have to remember that. Can you play games focused on something else? Of course, as a child I also played soccer with my sister's volleyball. But by design that ball was better for playing volleyball. So, in a game focused on combat, it is normal that an archetype (subclass in this case) that makes you fight worse is considered bad.
THis is what I was thinking....oddly I think that the PHB beast has LESS it can do with its action as it has a limited actions it can take as it can only take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, or Help action. I am assuming it can do more? but I am not sure....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Most beast attacks are mediocre when compared to the Ranger's attacks (or any other class) and as the ranger levels, the gap only gets wider. I have not found it to be game breaking to just let the beast have it's own actions as though it were a separate entity instead of just another class feature. Survivability is an issue that can be mitigated through armor and other items. Also, should the DM be kind (like myself), you may even come across the occasional magic item specifically made for beasts such as barding, collars and such.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
I find it an issue how you use your action to command it, unlike the drakewarden using a bonus action. I think Drakewarden is just better overall
Tasha's optional features fixed this.
Tashas "fixed it"....unless you want to cast bonus action spells for your attack.Comment retracted due to error on my part.again both have merit and both have downsides to play around with.
If you want to do something else with your bonus action and have the pet attack, you still can. You can sacrifice one of your attacks to have the pet attack too. It's just like the old beast master pet except with more hit points and better action economy. It's better in every way. Tasha's took one of the poorest designed subclasses in the game and made it one of the better ranger subclasses and I really don't understand how anyone could argue otherwise.
Sure enough, Tasha's fixed a subclass that was poorly designed. Now the beastmaster is a well-designed subclass, which works fine.
The PHB beastmaster is out of date. There is no reason to prefer that design, when it is objectively very bad. And the sample is that they fixed it later, something very unusual in this edition of D&D. They fixed it simply because they recognized that it was a mistake. Which is welcome, because thematically it's a classic D&D archetype that couldn't be represented by such a poorly designed subclass.
So while it is more limited in what it can do on your action, you can still free up your Bonus Action and command it at the same time.
While Lehrer is correct in action economy. I Had never seen any Tasha's beast master use the replacement attack, so I was led to believe the main action version was inferior that was my fault for incorrect info.
However to believe the tashas is superior in always is a false statement.
There are several main factors.
1. sever loss of utility options(blind sight, Poison harvesting, unique creature traits, ect)
2 Tasha's beast cannot act independent of the ranger . NO scouting sorry. NO watching the cart, room, ect.
3. While Tasha's beasts get more HP the "Hits till dead" ratio rarely goes up because of CR and damage scaling.(up to where most campaigns end)
4. PHB beasmaster scales with PB instead of stats or levels.(except HP) .So, Better for non wisdom multiclass. Especially, if its used as a "Familiar replacement" over combatant.
5. Controversial: "Pet death loophole" and "free action loopholes(search and hide and use an object are "free" commands)" but with dm's that support these rulings PHB beastmaster has perfectly fine functionality.
You actually saw me use it against some spoopy skeletons - that was the mechanism by which I would throw a net, issue a beast order, and shoot my hand crossbow (the net stops a second attack but not a Primal order, and I used CBE to shoot my hand crossbow as a bonus action thanks to throwing the net).
This is absolutely potentially significant. While the Primal Companion gains some incredibly useful abilities, like proficiency bonus added to all ability checks, you sacrifice a wide array of potential traits you could have found by shopping around with the Beast Companion.
Yes it can. In fact, in our game, I had my monkey act independently of me, remember?
In fact, unless I'm missing something, the Primal Companion action restrictions are strictly less than the Beast Companion restrictions.
Well, it's challenging to get into a deep dive on this without settling the unsolvable question of whether the Beast Companion gets your PB on all saves or all saves it's proficient in, because WOTC doesn't know how to use unambiguous grammar.
The only places the Primal Companion uses Wisdom are the attack roll, Land save DC, and Water escape DC, and both companions use your Ranger level for hit points. If you're going for a non-combatant, the Primal Companion (model: probably Air) will in particular outperform the Beast Companion at most tasks due to universal pseudo-proficiency.
I'm not saying the Primal Beastmaster is particularly overpowered or balanced (and in fact I will explicitly state that the Primal Companion has some serious problems your DM will need to fix to render it playable), but I agree with Lehrer that the PHB Beastmaster's biggest problem is action economy woes - letting people either order their companion actionlessly or with a bonus action (depending on desired balance) should always have been the standard since the PHB dropped with Animate Dead and Animate Objects (and for actionlessly, Conjure Animals).
The game establishes the beast can only act without commands if the ranger is incapacited. The phb ranger has "absent" added. Tasha's doesn't get actions while ranger is absent. It must dogde.
Specifies "in combat".
In combat, the beast acts during your turn. [...]
RAW if the primal companion encounters an enemy while exploring, it could still fight spending your bonus action even if you're absent (it doesn't say anything about you having to be present for that. It also doesn't say you command it verbally). In fact that "absent" in the Ranger's companion exists because it specifies that your command must be verbal (even to move), which would make exploration impossible without freedom when you are absent. On the other hand, it also tells you that it focuses on protecting you and itself, which can be interpreted in strange ways by the DM if you use it to explore.
The primal companion doesn't have those problems, because you only have those restrictions in combat, and doesn't need verbal commands.
Any dm that allows bonus action commands from beyond communication distance would also allow phb beastmaster full or functionality and all its implications.
But even with the loose interpretation, the fact that it can't switch from scouting to "in combat" is also a huge hindrance.
And nit picks of just one of my points still won't disprove the value of using phb ranger companions in a post tasha's world.
Both are needed and the new design trades off some of functionality, flavor and practicality.
I don't like to be so blunt, but you're not right. The PHB beast master is very bad. It wrecks your action economy, and makes you unable to play it the way it's supposed to. It is one of the worst subclasses in the game. I think there is consensus on that, except for someone who wants to discuss the obvious for some reason. There must be everything in the world.
However, Tasha's beast master is very good. It's well designed, and works the way it's supposed to.
I see no reason to play the PHB beast master, and the arguments you've made so far fall apart. You are simply wrong and do not want to admit it. Well, okay.
One thing I think a lot of people forget is that you can equip your beast companion. A big difference between the PHB companion and the Tasha's companion is how the AC is calculated. Equipping the Tasha's companion with armor would overwrite its AC with a different AC calculation, but the PHB companion gets a bonus to its AC. So a giant crab companion equipped with a Belt of Giant Strength and plate barding would be a pretty effective tank with its ability to grapple multiple targets and its 30ft blindsight.
Is the Tasha's companion better? In combat, generally yes. But the PHB companion can be good if you have access to good equipment, are creative, or use it for role play and exploration rather than combat.
Feature Requests || Homebrew FAQ || Pricing FAQ || Hardcovers FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
Another thing I haven't seen mentioned here yet (though I didn't read the full first 3 pages to be fair) is that with the PHB version if your companion dies you are potentially going to struggle a LOT to get a new good one. This was (and still is) a huge problem with the PHB version too since while there are pretty good companion options they aren't necessarily things you encounter that often in most campaigns. Heck, depending on the campaign you might be traveling in the completely wrong environment so without some serious detour or downtime investment it'd require some serious handwaving of the DM to give you the same kind of beast again.Plus it takes 8 hours and potential skill checks you can fail to make sure it's not hostile to you ... which also might take up even more time. Basically a full adventuring day to get a new beast and potentially a lot more if you need to travel to the right environment to find a specific one first. Meanwhile with Tasha's version you just spend a spell slot to summon a new one of the type you want within 1 minute and call it a day.
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
There are plenty of options for dealing with pet companion's death both preventative and post death. It's a non-issue if you plan and work as a team.
As for Adding requirements for bonding that aren’t In the text is deliberately hampering the discussion and the subclass.
Not to mention having death stakes makes for better narrative and set's up the party for softer blows when the eventual loss of other party members happens.
Accidentally double post.
8 hours without your subclass is hard to plan around I think...
Overall its a lot less flexible in that sense than Tasha's which may not work as well out of combat...but then again I would not be sending my weak pet to scout anyway as a PHB ranger as it would likely be killed fast anyway.
For general scouting a familar is generally better anyway. I do not really see a use for the companion outside of combat that isn't done better than a 1st level wizard spell
But that's a bit situational, isn't it? I mean, being able to equip your creature with a magic item is like a letter to Santa Claus.
On the other hand it seems to me that you are arguing that the beast companion is better than the primal companion for exploration and roleplaying. Why's that? What reason is there to argue that? I don't see what mechanical advantage the beast companion has that makes it a better scout (unless you mean you can choose a specific creature). Regarding the roleplay, there is no mechanic that is worth. It depends on how the player handles it. So I don't see why it's going to be superior in that regard.
And finally, D&D is a game focused on combat. I think at this point it's silly to have to remember that. Can you play games focused on something else? Of course, as a child I also played soccer with my sister's volleyball. But by design that ball was better for playing volleyball. So, in a game focused on combat, it is normal that an archetype (subclass in this case) that makes you fight worse is considered bad.
THis is what I was thinking....oddly I think that the PHB beast has LESS it can do with its action as it has a limited actions it can take as it can only take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, or Help action. I am assuming it can do more? but I am not sure....