Yeah, but they have said that they normally make UA overpowered so that they can nerf it however much they want. It makes them good, and I'd hate to see it go, but they still have some work to do at later levels.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Sure, I let my game’s beastmaster’s companion just take its turn as if it were any other creature. But that is explicitly against RAW. Saying “we don’t need the rule to be fixed because we can just ignore it” isn’t a great message.
I don’t ignore the rule, I interpret differently. Everyone else seems to look at the Beast Master description and think it means that these are the only things the animal companion can do. If it’s not in the description, the beast can’t do it.
It's not about what the beast can't do. It's what the ranger can order the beast to do and what the beast does do if the ranger doesn't. "You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, or Help action. If you don't issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action." You can ignore this and let the ranger issue a command as something other than an Action. You can ignore this and let the beast do something other than Dodge without a command. In fact, I think you should ignore this. What you shouldn't do is let WotC off the hook for writing a stupid rule.
I also take “it takes its turn on your initiative” to mean that the ranger and animal companion can interweave their turns. I know that many people are adamant that the rules don’t allow this but why not? This allows the ranger and companion to work like a team, it eliminates awkwardness from taking their turns consecutively and it make for faster game flow.
Cool, but that's not how turns work. The combat chapter's section on the Order of Combat is clear that characters... take turns. I don't actually think this is something that makes much difference one way or the other, and for a while I did let my game's beastmaster mix actions between herself and her companion. But it's very clearly not allowed by the rules as written.
These are just some of the reasons why I think the Beast Master’s “problems” are the result of how DMs are interpreting it.
Again, what you're doing here isn't "interpreting." It's "ignoring some things and making up other things." And again, to be clear, I think that's what you SHOULD be doing. But Wizards need to take responsibility for writing rules that require such measures to be halfway playable. The companion stat blocks in the Class Feature Variants UA are honestly fine for this.
To say something a bit more on-topic to the thread, I think the UA makes it unnecessary for Hunter's Mark to affect animal companion damage. My only complaint is that it still makes dual-wielding with an animal companion unattractive.
If you can, read the original text of the Beast Master archetype before any errata were added. If you have a printed copy of the original PHB, note that the text of the two archetypes, Hunter and Beast Master, take up exactly one page.
I am not making things up, I am applying one of the first rules of the PHB, Specific beats General.
Reading the original text of the Beast Master as specific changes to the general rules is the only way the Beast Master makes any sense to me. It also makes most of the errata of Beast Master merely clarification and not major changes. If you consider the text as everything and the only things the animal companion can do, which seems to be how everyone else does, you end up with something that I find deserving of every criticism of the subclass that I have read.
I do not ignore anything, I do not change one word, I am simply reading the archetype with the perspective of Specific beats General.
The Beast Master is worded differently than anything else in the original PHB. There is nothing else to compare it to. Even the phrase “it takes its turn on your initiative” is shared with only one other thing, mounts. I’ve read the tweets, I have watched the video where Crawford talks about rider and mount interweaving their turns. Maybe I’m misunderstanding him but interweaving turns makes far more sense to me than the alternative.
If you have convinced yourself that the Beast Master should be read the way you read it, if you have read everything you can find and thought long and hard about it and you are convinced that there isn’t any other way to read it, then you have done everything I have done and we have simply come to different conclusions.
The beast obeys your commands as best as it can. It takes its turn on your initiative. On your turn, you can verbally command the beast where to move (no action required by you). You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, or Help action. If you don't issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action. Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one weapon attack yourself when you command the beast to take the Attack action.
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.
It is very clear in the rules that if you don't command the beast to do one of the listed action, it does nothing other than Dodge. There is no other way to interpret that sentence.
As ArtificeMeal just pointed out to me recently, in the Class Feature Variants, the two Animal Companions have the following feature:
Ready Companion. As a bonus action, you can command the beast to make its [specific] attack or to Hide.
I totally missed that on two read throughs, probably because I have no desire to play that subclass. That sounds like a pretty darned good improvement.
The beast obeys your commands as best as it can. It takes its turn on your initiative. On your turn, you can verbally command the beast where to move (no action required by you). You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, or Help action. If you don't issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action. Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one weapon attack yourself when you command the beast to take the Attack action.
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.
It is very clear in the rules that if you don't command the beast to do one of the listed action, it does nothing other than Dodge. There is no other way to interpret that sentence.
Your highlighted text about Dodge is from an errata, I’m talking about the original text. Besides, I am issuing commands, they just are not the ones listed as requiring the ranger to use their action so that phrase wouldn’t apply.
If you look at the text as specific changes to the general rules, then the text about verbal commands applies to all actions commanded, the text about using the ranger’s action only applies to the commands listed there. No where does it say that those are the only commands that can be made. It says that those are the commands that require the ranger’s action to command.
Does it make sense to you that the ranger can’t command the animal companion to Search, or fetch a stick or many other things that a DM controlled NPC animal could do? Do you think this was merely an oversight that hasn’t been corrected in multiple errata. If that makes sense to you then play it that way. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
Issuing a command is a specific rule in the Beast Master that modifies the general rules that would apply to a DM controlled NPC beast. The DM can have a beast do anything they think is appropriate. Exactly what the DM might think is appropriate depends on the type of beast.
That whole section is the official and current rules for the 5e Beast Master's animal companion. Anything from previous editions or printings are no longer valid.
Also, I cannot find any of the general rules you are talking about. Can you provide a book and page number?
The older print edition is even more explicit in how bad a rule it is. I’m away from home so I can’t promise this is a verbatim quote, but it literally says “the animal companion takes no action unless the ranger commands it to.”
No one is arguing that this makes sense. We all think it’s stupid. But it’s WotC’s stupidity, and I cannot wrap my brain around why you’re defending them in a way that requires you to pretend they didn’t write what they wrote.
The older print edition is even more explicit in how bad a rule it is. I’m away from home so I can’t promise this is a verbatim quote, but it literally says “the animal companion takes no action unless the ranger commands it to.”
No one is arguing that this makes sense. We all think it’s stupid. But it’s WotC’s stupidity, and I cannot wrap my brain around why you’re defending them in a way that requires you to pretend they didn’t write what they wrote.
It's clear why the rule exists -- it's because of action economy. The problem is that beast actions are insufficiently valuable to justify costing a regular action, except as an action you take rarely (if you just use it as a source of opportunity attacks and as disposable buffer to absorb damage, sure, it's being useful).
A level 3 wolf companion has attack +6/2d4+4(9) and knock prone (DC 11), with an excellent chance of advantage on that roll. That's actually a pretty good attack at level 3 (level 3 dueling fighter is attack +5/1d8+5(9.5), plus any tricks from path), but at AC 15 and 12 hp it's likely to be killed, either on purpose or as collateral damage of another attack, and it scales quite poorly with level -- at level 7 it's +7/2d4+5(10) while the dueling fighter with a +1 sword is attacking at +9/1d8+8 (12.5). Also, it's not like the game hasn't ignored action economy in other areas.
The problem is that subclass features are generally pretty low value; just the ability to act as a hit point buffer and take reactions (and use senses -- perception +5 with advantage on hearing and smell is actually pretty solid), or at level 7 use Help as a bonus action, is as high value as what you get out of other subclasses, so being able to also have it take actions without a substantial cost for its master is overpowered.
Actually, here's a thought: just change Beast Bond to add "while this spell is active, a beastmaster ranger can command his companion as a bonus action. When cast at 2nd level, you can maintain your concentration on the spell for up to 1 hours; this increases to 8 hours at level 3-4, 24 hours at level 5." That creates a real cost (spell slot, concentration, bonus action) that is still lower than the cost of an extra attack.
The older print edition is even more explicit in how bad a rule it is. I’m away from home so I can’t promise this is a verbatim quote, but it literally says “the animal companion takes no action unless the ranger commands it to.”
No one is arguing that this makes sense. We all think it’s stupid. But it’s WotC’s stupidity, and I cannot wrap my brain around why you’re defending them in a way that requires you to pretend they didn’t write what they wrote.
I not trying to defend WotC, I just trying to take their lemons and make some lemonade. I feel that what I described creates a ranger and companion that work like a team and allows the ranger to have some control over the animal companions actions without always using their action. I think this allows for smoother game flow and allows the DM to say “yes” to a lot more things that a beast master player might want to do. There is nothing more frustrating in an RPG for DM and player then when the player wants to do something that sounds reasonable but the DM feels they have to say “no” because the rules don’t seem to support it.
And I am commanding an action, it is just not an action that requires the ranger’s action.
I not trying to defend WotC, I just trying to take their lemons and make some lemonade. I feel that what I described creates a ranger and companion that work like a team and allows the ranger to have some control over the animal companions actions without always using their action.
Yes, but that's simply not what the rules are. There's nothing wrong with house rules, but that doesn't make them not house rules.
If you want to call it a house rule, I’m fine with that but I am not changing a single word and I am reading it from the perspective of Specific beats General, one of the first rules in the PHB that describes how you should interpret the rules. If specific rules do not apply, then you go back to the general rules. One of the complaints about the animal companion is that it is less able than a DM controlled beast. It shouldn’t be. The companion should be able to do everything the DM controlled beast can do, it just has to follow the specific changes to the rules in the Beast Master text. If the Beast Master text doesn’t change it, it follows the general rules that every other NPC and PC follow.
If you want to call it a house rule, I’m fine with that but I am not changing a single word.
Except that the vague wording you're relying on has already been corrected in errata, so it's clear that the interpretation you're relying on was not intended and caused by sloppy rules editing.
Yeah. I know Wizards doesn't want to invalidate the rules in the Player's Handbook, but Beast Master and Ranger in general needs a major overhaul.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
That Variant Ranger is pretty baller. There’s a Variant Ranger Monster Slayer in on of the campaigns I am in and holy cow.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yeah, but they're going to nerf it.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
They shouldn’t, brings Rangers in general up to par.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yeah, but they have said that they normally make UA overpowered so that they can nerf it however much they want. It makes them good, and I'd hate to see it go, but they still have some work to do at later levels.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It's not about what the beast can't do. It's what the ranger can order the beast to do and what the beast does do if the ranger doesn't. "You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, or Help action. If you don't issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action." You can ignore this and let the ranger issue a command as something other than an Action. You can ignore this and let the beast do something other than Dodge without a command. In fact, I think you should ignore this. What you shouldn't do is let WotC off the hook for writing a stupid rule.
Cool, but that's not how turns work. The combat chapter's section on the Order of Combat is clear that characters... take turns. I don't actually think this is something that makes much difference one way or the other, and for a while I did let my game's beastmaster mix actions between herself and her companion. But it's very clearly not allowed by the rules as written.
Again, what you're doing here isn't "interpreting." It's "ignoring some things and making up other things." And again, to be clear, I think that's what you SHOULD be doing. But Wizards need to take responsibility for writing rules that require such measures to be halfway playable. The companion stat blocks in the Class Feature Variants UA are honestly fine for this.
To say something a bit more on-topic to the thread, I think the UA makes it unnecessary for Hunter's Mark to affect animal companion damage. My only complaint is that it still makes dual-wielding with an animal companion unattractive.
If you can, read the original text of the Beast Master archetype before any errata were added. If you have a printed copy of the original PHB, note that the text of the two archetypes, Hunter and Beast Master, take up exactly one page.
I am not making things up, I am applying one of the first rules of the PHB, Specific beats General.
Reading the original text of the Beast Master as specific changes to the general rules is the only way the Beast Master makes any sense to me. It also makes most of the errata of Beast Master merely clarification and not major changes. If you consider the text as everything and the only things the animal companion can do, which seems to be how everyone else does, you end up with something that I find deserving of every criticism of the subclass that I have read.
I do not ignore anything, I do not change one word, I am simply reading the archetype with the perspective of Specific beats General.
The Beast Master is worded differently than anything else in the original PHB. There is nothing else to compare it to. Even the phrase “it takes its turn on your initiative” is shared with only one other thing, mounts. I’ve read the tweets, I have watched the video where Crawford talks about rider and mount interweaving their turns. Maybe I’m misunderstanding him but interweaving turns makes far more sense to me than the alternative.
If you have convinced yourself that the Beast Master should be read the way you read it, if you have read everything you can find and thought long and hard about it and you are convinced that there isn’t any other way to read it, then you have done everything I have done and we have simply come to different conclusions.
The beast obeys your commands as best as it can. It takes its turn on your initiative. On your turn, you can verbally command the beast where to move (no action required by you). You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, or Help action. If you don't issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action. Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one weapon attack yourself when you command the beast to take the Attack action.
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.
It is very clear in the rules that if you don't command the beast to do one of the listed action, it does nothing other than Dodge. There is no other way to interpret that sentence.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
As ArtificeMeal just pointed out to me recently, in the Class Feature Variants, the two Animal Companions have the following feature:
Ready Companion. As a bonus action, you can command the beast to make its [specific] attack or to Hide.
I totally missed that on two read throughs, probably because I have no desire to play that subclass. That sounds like a pretty darned good improvement.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Your highlighted text about Dodge is from an errata, I’m talking about the original text. Besides, I am issuing commands, they just are not the ones listed as requiring the ranger to use their action so that phrase wouldn’t apply.
If you look at the text as specific changes to the general rules, then the text about verbal commands applies to all actions commanded, the text about using the ranger’s action only applies to the commands listed there. No where does it say that those are the only commands that can be made. It says that those are the commands that require the ranger’s action to command.
Does it make sense to you that the ranger can’t command the animal companion to Search, or fetch a stick or many other things that a DM controlled NPC animal could do? Do you think this was merely an oversight that hasn’t been corrected in multiple errata. If that makes sense to you then play it that way. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
Can you please site those general rules for issuing commands to which you are referring?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Issuing a command is a specific rule in the Beast Master that modifies the general rules that would apply to a DM controlled NPC beast. The DM can have a beast do anything they think is appropriate. Exactly what the DM might think is appropriate depends on the type of beast.
That whole section is the official and current rules for the 5e Beast Master's animal companion. Anything from previous editions or printings are no longer valid.
Also, I cannot find any of the general rules you are talking about. Can you provide a book and page number?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
The older print edition is even more explicit in how bad a rule it is. I’m away from home so I can’t promise this is a verbatim quote, but it literally says “the animal companion takes no action unless the ranger commands it to.”
No one is arguing that this makes sense. We all think it’s stupid. But it’s WotC’s stupidity, and I cannot wrap my brain around why you’re defending them in a way that requires you to pretend they didn’t write what they wrote.
^^^^ This
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It's clear why the rule exists -- it's because of action economy. The problem is that beast actions are insufficiently valuable to justify costing a regular action, except as an action you take rarely (if you just use it as a source of opportunity attacks and as disposable buffer to absorb damage, sure, it's being useful).
A level 3 wolf companion has attack +6/2d4+4(9) and knock prone (DC 11), with an excellent chance of advantage on that roll. That's actually a pretty good attack at level 3 (level 3 dueling fighter is attack +5/1d8+5(9.5), plus any tricks from path), but at AC 15 and 12 hp it's likely to be killed, either on purpose or as collateral damage of another attack, and it scales quite poorly with level -- at level 7 it's +7/2d4+5(10) while the dueling fighter with a +1 sword is attacking at +9/1d8+8 (12.5). Also, it's not like the game hasn't ignored action economy in other areas.
The problem is that subclass features are generally pretty low value; just the ability to act as a hit point buffer and take reactions (and use senses -- perception +5 with advantage on hearing and smell is actually pretty solid), or at level 7 use Help as a bonus action, is as high value as what you get out of other subclasses, so being able to also have it take actions without a substantial cost for its master is overpowered.
Actually, here's a thought: just change Beast Bond to add "while this spell is active, a beastmaster ranger can command his companion as a bonus action. When cast at 2nd level, you can maintain your concentration on the spell for up to 1 hours; this increases to 8 hours at level 3-4, 24 hours at level 5." That creates a real cost (spell slot, concentration, bonus action) that is still lower than the cost of an extra attack.
I not trying to defend WotC, I just trying to take their lemons and make some lemonade. I feel that what I described creates a ranger and companion that work like a team and allows the ranger to have some control over the animal companions actions without always using their action. I think this allows for smoother game flow and allows the DM to say “yes” to a lot more things that a beast master player might want to do. There is nothing more frustrating in an RPG for DM and player then when the player wants to do something that sounds reasonable but the DM feels they have to say “no” because the rules don’t seem to support it.
And I am commanding an action, it is just not an action that requires the ranger’s action.
Yes, but that's simply not what the rules are. There's nothing wrong with house rules, but that doesn't make them not house rules.
If you want to call it a house rule, I’m fine with that but I am not changing a single word and I am reading it from the perspective of Specific beats General, one of the first rules in the PHB that describes how you should interpret the rules. If specific rules do not apply, then you go back to the general rules. One of the complaints about the animal companion is that it is less able than a DM controlled beast. It shouldn’t be. The companion should be able to do everything the DM controlled beast can do, it just has to follow the specific changes to the rules in the Beast Master text. If the Beast Master text doesn’t change it, it follows the general rules that every other NPC and PC follow.
Except that the vague wording you're relying on has already been corrected in errata, so it's clear that the interpretation you're relying on was not intended and caused by sloppy rules editing.