They seems to be more combat focused then the PHB counterpart and more survival in the sense that they can be resurrected.
I imagine that they are more “fun” to play because of the bonus action command.
Mechanically, the biggest perk I see is the damage output from levels 3-10 is more or less on par with other rangers without using hunter’s mark while the others do.
Do the lack of stealth and perception abilities make the subclass less interesting to you?
I will miss the opportunity for poison harvesting and playing with all the monster abilities. (if druid shapeshifting isn't a problem, why not a let a ranger use monster rules) Even though they have better action economy they feel like they have less personality and less to offer. I am the type of player that doesn't mind if only one Character attacks a round.
Perception and stealth pets really helped the Mad(Multi Attribute dependent) rangers Not have as big of an issue. that's a loss But Tasha's allowed for wisdom only rangers so they filled the gab a bit.
I was never a fan of the PH Beastmaster Ranger (neither as a DM nor a player. That said I love the concept of the Ranger. I now play a Halforc Wisdom BM Ranger with a wolverine pet, I am proficient and canny in Perception and have good Dex so I can Stealth quite well... and I can say it is my most beloved D&D character so far. I never liked the idea of milking snake poison etc cause ... well a snake is not what I envisioned as a pet for my BM. Long answer short: Yes I love the new BM - and I really love that the old BM is there for the folk who want to play it that way.
I never liked the idea of milking snake poison etc cause ... well a snake is not what I envisioned as a pet for my BM.
Yes. It bugged me that all the types of pets I always wanted were inferior to weird stuff like snakes. Since I was already behind the curve due to the subclass not understanding how action economy works, I felt like I was letting my party down just by choosing what I wanted. Now I have a template that I can put my own flavor and personality on to.
I don't mind them not being scouts because when I play a Ranger I want to be the scout.
I'm sure I'll get some blowback for this, but does anyone think the new Tasha's mechanics and beast options are too powerful in combat? And by powerful in combat, I'm referring to damage output. They now made the beasts able to attack basically every turn. That combined with how the PHB beasts are used in combat and the numbers get really high, fast, before level 11, and taking into account the to-hit chance. I guess the trade off is the defensive versus offensive, but I don't know...
While I think the "Primal Companion" feature is a huge improvement, I wonder why that was the only subclass feature they introduced a replacement for. The 7th level feature lets you use a bonus action to command your companion to dash, disengage, or hide (I think) so long as the companion hadn't made an attack. Since ALL of the commands are now bonus actions instead of actions, using Primal Companion makes the 7th level subclass feature practically nonexistent
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Four-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
While I think the "Primal Companion" feature is a huge improvement, I wonder why that was the only subclass feature they introduced a replacement for. The 7th level feature lets you use a bonus action to command your companion to dash, disengage, or hide (I think) so long as the companion hadn't made an attack. Since ALL of the commands are now bonus actions instead of actions, using Primal Companion makes the 7th level subclass feature practically nonexistent
There's a big debate about that on some other thread. I think it is either redundant, so easier not to change anything, or the PHB will get a very slight errata this year kind of sweetening the subclass just a touch, i.e., moving the bonus action to the level 3 subclass ability and removing it from the level 7 ability.
The tasha beastmaster hurt the duality of weapon damage + pet damage. If you want to deal damage with your weapon, you have to get a good dex score. If you want good dmg for your pet you have to get a high wisdom score in order for him to hit. Unless you go SAD (which in itself is good but you loose on certain bonus action for magic stones/shillelagh. Also, you loose alot of special abilities from pet like bonding a bat to explore a cave in details a day or 2 before you get go into it and then swap back to the regular dps pet (who would surely still be around after loosing the bond). It's funny to say, but I actually prefer the old PHB version. You feel more ranger than druid despite being mechanically inferior.
If you play the PHB subclass as letting the beast auto dodge while you do your awesome ranger stuff and tactically position the beast so it gets an attack of opportunity every 3 or 4 rounds it does the same damage per round over 3 or 4 rounds as every other ranger subclass, except the Tasha’s beast master optional replacement, which is overpowered in my opinion.
Also, you loose alot of special abilities from pet like bonding a bat to explore a cave in details a day or 2 before you get go into it and then swap back to the regular dps pet (who would surely still be around after loosing the bond). It's funny to say, but I actually prefer the old PHB version. You feel more ranger than druid despite being mechanically inferior.
I agree, I like phb pet is better but what you described of switching out the pet is not in the rules (the biggest PHB pet mistake IMO) This switch is homebrew but it solves some of the "Complaints" people have with PHB Beasmaster.
At the risk of being verbally abused... I think the pet death loop hole has more mechanical support than the switch. But I've never had a dm agree to either.
Also, you loose alot of special abilities from pet like bonding a bat to explore a cave in details a day or 2 before you get go into it and then swap back to the regular dps pet (who would surely still be around after loosing the bond). It's funny to say, but I actually prefer the old PHB version. You feel more ranger than druid despite being mechanically inferior.
I agree, I like phb pet is better but what you described of switching out the pet is not in the rules (the biggest PHB pet mistake IMO) This switch is homebrew but it solves some of the "Complaints" people have with PHB Beasmaster.
At the risk of being verbally abused... I think the pet death loop hole has more mechanical support than the switch. But I've never had a dm agree to either.
Yep. The beast having to die is crazy sad and dumb. Rules as written, yes. But sad and dumb. Switching out your currently bonded beast with a different one (like the Tasha's variant specifically allows) is not only fun, it is SUPER helpful. I'd allow it.
I mean it does not textually prevent you from bonding with more than one two... It says "if the beast dies, you can bond..." but then if the beast doesn't die can you do it? It does not strictly forbid to have effectively another beast and swap? The ruling is only for the death of the animal. What if you want to change beast? Also, how do you acquire your beast at level 3? It doesn't state anything for that case too except that you "gain"... It appear magically by your side? That sure make no sense since at level 3 you have:
No beast
Your beast is not dead
Textually, you cannot bond with an animal for 8 hours and gain a new one therefore you cannot gain one in the first place. Wth...
Although it pains me to say it, I think that might be pushing the intent of the ability a bit. However! This would be no different than an battle smith artificer having a homunculus servant and a steel defender.
Although it pains me to say it, I think that might be pushing the intent of the ability a bit. However! This would be no different than an battle smith artificer having a homunculus servant and a steel defender.
What I'm saying is having 1 bonded beast at a time and not more, you just bond with another one during a down time for a specific task and then go retrieve and bond with the first one again. Anyway, I think it is a decision the DM need to make since the PHB ruling doesn't handle all cases. Like, what if your beast get kidnapped, get teleported to another plane, etc? You surely can bond to another one even if it is not dead because that would make the beastmaster useless...
Although it pains me to say it, I think that might be pushing the intent of the ability a bit. However! This would be no different than an battle smith artificer having a homunculus servant and a steel defender.
What I'm saying is having 1 bonded beast at a time and not more, you just bond with another one during a down time for a specific task and then go retrieve and bond with the first one again. Anyway, I think it is a decision the DM need to make since the PHB ruling doesn't handle all cases. Like, what if your beast get kidnapped, get teleported to another plane, etc? You surely can bond to another one even if it is not dead because that would make the beastmaster useless...
I agree to it as a Possible solution but its not in the rules. Its homebrew.
Although it pains me to say it, I think that might be pushing the intent of the ability a bit. However! This would be no different than an battle smith artificer having a homunculus servant and a steel defender.
What I'm saying is having 1 bonded beast at a time and not more, you just bond with another one during a down time for a specific task and then go retrieve and bond with the first one again. Anyway, I think it is a decision the DM need to make since the PHB ruling doesn't handle all cases. Like, what if your beast get kidnapped, get teleported to another plane, etc? You surely can bond to another one even if it is not dead because that would make the beastmaster useless...
I agree to it as a Possible solution but its not in the rules. Its homebrew.
It's also not how a lot of people want to use their BM companions. Even with it being something that is Added to Tasha's version it's kind of a niche group that tends to want to use it that way...
Did the Tasha’s replacement for the beast master’s third level ability and its required primal beast options do the trick for you?
The L3 benefits are amazing, but you have to multiclass out before L7 unless you want to just not have subclass benefits anymore. OTOH, the new Primal Companion simply scales with proficiency bonus, so multiclassing out really is made of upsides. If you're bailing on Ranger by L6 at the latest, Beast Master offers a deeply compelling pet. particularly if your party hasn't got a bard in it, so the pet's proficiency in every skill in the game (and initiative checks) can really shine.
Did the Tasha’s replacement for the beast master’s third level ability and its required primal beast options do the trick for you?
It's pretty close. It definitely encourages investing in Wisdom over Dexterity, which is welcome. No other archetype really did, before, and the added synergy with Druidic Warrior and the ability to use a Spellcasting Focus mean you can just go shillelagh for most of the game. That said, it's still possible to get 18s or 20s in both stats and be a powerful archer or TWF user.
But I do miss the ability to choose old beasts, so I'm hybridizing the rules for any future Beast Masters at my table.
Did the Tasha’s replacement for the beast master’s third level ability and its required primal beast options do the trick for you?
It's pretty close. It definitely encourages investing in Wisdom over Dexterity, which is welcome. No other archetype really did, before, and the added synergy with Druidic Warrior and the ability to use a Spellcasting Focus mean you can just go shillelagh for most of the game. That said, it's still possible to get 18s or 20s in both stats and be a powerful archer or TWF user.
But I do miss the ability to choose old beasts, so I'm hybridizing the rules for any future Beast Masters at my table.
I'm in agreement with all of this. Including table level hybridization of certain rules of things to the old beasts if players wish at my personal tables.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Did the Tasha’s replacement for the beast master’s third level ability and its required primal beast options do the trick for you?
They seems to be more combat focused then the PHB counterpart and more survival in the sense that they can be resurrected.
I imagine that they are more “fun” to play because of the bonus action command.
Mechanically, the biggest perk I see is the damage output from levels 3-10 is more or less on par with other rangers without using hunter’s mark while the others do.
Do the lack of stealth and perception abilities make the subclass less interesting to you?
I will miss the opportunity for poison harvesting and playing with all the monster abilities. (if druid shapeshifting isn't a problem, why not a let a ranger use monster rules) Even though they have better action economy they feel like they have less personality and less to offer. I am the type of player that doesn't mind if only one Character attacks a round.
Perception and stealth pets really helped the Mad(Multi Attribute dependent) rangers Not have as big of an issue. that's a loss But Tasha's allowed for wisdom only rangers so they filled the gab a bit.
I was never a fan of the PH Beastmaster Ranger (neither as a DM nor a player. That said I love the concept of the Ranger. I now play a Halforc Wisdom BM Ranger with a wolverine pet, I am proficient and canny in Perception and have good Dex so I can Stealth quite well... and I can say it is my most beloved D&D character so far. I never liked the idea of milking snake poison etc cause ... well a snake is not what I envisioned as a pet for my BM. Long answer short: Yes I love the new BM - and I really love that the old BM is there for the folk who want to play it that way.
Yes. It bugged me that all the types of pets I always wanted were inferior to weird stuff like snakes. Since I was already behind the curve due to the subclass not understanding how action economy works, I felt like I was letting my party down just by choosing what I wanted. Now I have a template that I can put my own flavor and personality on to.
I don't mind them not being scouts because when I play a Ranger I want to be the scout.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I'm sure I'll get some blowback for this, but does anyone think the new Tasha's mechanics and beast options are too powerful in combat? And by powerful in combat, I'm referring to damage output. They now made the beasts able to attack basically every turn. That combined with how the PHB beasts are used in combat and the numbers get really high, fast, before level 11, and taking into account the to-hit chance. I guess the trade off is the defensive versus offensive, but I don't know...
While I think the "Primal Companion" feature is a huge improvement, I wonder why that was the only subclass feature they introduced a replacement for. The 7th level feature lets you use a bonus action to command your companion to dash, disengage, or hide (I think) so long as the companion hadn't made an attack. Since ALL of the commands are now bonus actions instead of actions, using Primal Companion makes the 7th level subclass feature practically nonexistent
Four-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
There's a big debate about that on some other thread. I think it is either redundant, so easier not to change anything, or the PHB will get a very slight errata this year kind of sweetening the subclass just a touch, i.e., moving the bonus action to the level 3 subclass ability and removing it from the level 7 ability.
The tasha beastmaster hurt the duality of weapon damage + pet damage. If you want to deal damage with your weapon, you have to get a good dex score. If you want good dmg for your pet you have to get a high wisdom score in order for him to hit. Unless you go SAD (which in itself is good but you loose on certain bonus action for magic stones/shillelagh. Also, you loose alot of special abilities from pet like bonding a bat to explore a cave in details a day or 2 before you get go into it and then swap back to the regular dps pet (who would surely still be around after loosing the bond). It's funny to say, but I actually prefer the old PHB version. You feel more ranger than druid despite being mechanically inferior.
If you play the PHB subclass as letting the beast auto dodge while you do your awesome ranger stuff and tactically position the beast so it gets an attack of opportunity every 3 or 4 rounds it does the same damage per round over 3 or 4 rounds as every other ranger subclass, except the Tasha’s beast master optional replacement, which is overpowered in my opinion.
I agree, I like phb pet is better but what you described of switching out the pet is not in the rules (the biggest PHB pet mistake IMO) This switch is homebrew but it solves some of the "Complaints" people have with PHB Beasmaster.
At the risk of being verbally abused... I think the pet death loop hole has more mechanical support than the switch. But I've never had a dm agree to either.
Yep. The beast having to die is crazy sad and dumb. Rules as written, yes. But sad and dumb. Switching out your currently bonded beast with a different one (like the Tasha's variant specifically allows) is not only fun, it is SUPER helpful. I'd allow it.
I mean it does not textually prevent you from bonding with more than one two... It says "if the beast dies, you can bond..." but then if the beast doesn't die can you do it? It does not strictly forbid to have effectively another beast and swap? The ruling is only for the death of the animal. What if you want to change beast? Also, how do you acquire your beast at level 3? It doesn't state anything for that case too except that you "gain"... It appear magically by your side? That sure make no sense since at level 3 you have:
Textually, you cannot bond with an animal for 8 hours and gain a new one therefore you cannot gain one in the first place. Wth...
Although it pains me to say it, I think that might be pushing the intent of the ability a bit. However! This would be no different than an battle smith artificer having a homunculus servant and a steel defender.
What I'm saying is having 1 bonded beast at a time and not more, you just bond with another one during a down time for a specific task and then go retrieve and bond with the first one again. Anyway, I think it is a decision the DM need to make since the PHB ruling doesn't handle all cases. Like, what if your beast get kidnapped, get teleported to another plane, etc? You surely can bond to another one even if it is not dead because that would make the beastmaster useless...
I agree to it as a Possible solution but its not in the rules. Its homebrew.
It's also not how a lot of people want to use their BM companions. Even with it being something that is Added to Tasha's version it's kind of a niche group that tends to want to use it that way...
The L3 benefits are amazing, but you have to multiclass out before L7 unless you want to just not have subclass benefits anymore. OTOH, the new Primal Companion simply scales with proficiency bonus, so multiclassing out really is made of upsides. If you're bailing on Ranger by L6 at the latest, Beast Master offers a deeply compelling pet. particularly if your party hasn't got a bard in it, so the pet's proficiency in every skill in the game (and initiative checks) can really shine.
It's pretty close. It definitely encourages investing in Wisdom over Dexterity, which is welcome. No other archetype really did, before, and the added synergy with Druidic Warrior and the ability to use a Spellcasting Focus mean you can just go shillelagh for most of the game. That said, it's still possible to get 18s or 20s in both stats and be a powerful archer or TWF user.
But I do miss the ability to choose old beasts, so I'm hybridizing the rules for any future Beast Masters at my table.
I'm in agreement with all of this. Including table level hybridization of certain rules of things to the old beasts if players wish at my personal tables.