Although this has been answered. I wonder if you could use spells to grant the next attack advantage would work well with your wolf if you are able to go before your wolf.
@LeviRocks Hey, now, no need to get snippy. :-) My guy has done pretty well for himself!
No, no offense to you, just Beast Master Ranger is the most criticized subclass in 5e. If you enjoy it, good for you! Until Wizards of the Coast fixes it, I will never recommend it. But, if you enjoy it, and it works well for you, you do you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
@LeviRocks Hey, now, no need to get snippy. :-) My guy has done pretty well for himself!
No, no offense to you, just Beast Master Ranger is the most criticized subclass in 5e. If you enjoy it, good for you! Until Wizards of the Coast fixes it, I will never recommend it. But, if you enjoy it, and it works well for you, you do you.
In my opinion, it isn’t WotC that needs to fix the beast master. DMs need to interpret the beast master and the ranger in general in a way that fits their campaign. It is within the DM’s power to make changes. I’ve read a lot of ways that beast master has been interpreted that I agree are just awful, but I put the blame on the DM.
Just for example, if your DM says that the animal companion doesn’t get death saving throws, either walk away or play a different class because that DM isn’t even willing to consider that the animal companion is an important NPC which the PHB explicitly says can be (and should be) given death saving throws.
Just for example, if your DM says that the animal companion doesn’t get death saving throws, either walk away or play a different class because that DM isn’t even willing to consider that the animal companion is an important NPC which the PHB explicitly says can be (and should be) given death saving throws.
In this case the DM would simply be ignoring the rules. The rules say every creature gets death saving throws - but that it is up to the DM to ignore certain creatures for the sake of simplicity. Like say if the party is fighting 20 weak enemies - it'd be a pain in the rear to keep track of all those death saving throws every round - so it's easier to just say "they die".
Saying a Ranger's companion doesn't get saving throws isn't for simplicity - it's either done in ignorance or malice.
DMs who don’t get give animal companions death saves are ********, but that’s not the problem with the beastmaster. The problem is that they spend two entire levels in a situation where either the ranger or the animal companion cannot attack in combat.
It seems like many players see Hunter’s Mark as the defining spell of the ranger class and are then frustrated that it doesn’t work well with Beast Master and concentration means it can’t be used with many other spells. The focus then becomes what the ranger can’t do rather than on what it can.
DMs who don’t get give animal companions death saves are ********, but that’s not the problem with the beastmaster. The problem is that they spend two entire levels in a situation where either the ranger or the animal companion cannot attack in combat.
I would be unhappy with the Beast Master too if that were the way I interpreted it. I look at the description of the Beast Master as changes to the general rules, not as the only things the animal companion can do. This gives the DM the flexibility to allow the ranger to command the animal companion to do anything the DM would allow any other animal NPC to do.
I guess there may be some situations where the DM doesn’t have the leeway to interpret the Beast Master in an unorthodox way but the great majority of DM can, they just don’t.
It seems like many players see Hunter’s Mark as the defining spell of the ranger class and are then frustrated that it doesn’t work well with Beast Master and concentration means it can’t be used with many other spells. The focus then becomes what the ranger can’t do rather than on what it can.
DMs who don’t get give animal companions death saves are ********, but that’s not the problem with the beastmaster. The problem is that they spend two entire levels in a situation where either the ranger or the animal companion cannot attack in combat.
I would be unhappy with the Beast Master too if that were the way I interpreted it. I look at the description of the Beast Master as changes to the general rules, not as the only things the animal companion can do. This gives the DM the flexibility to allow the ranger to command the animal companion to do anything the DM would allow any other animal NPC to do.
I guess there may be some situations where the DM doesn’t have the leeway to interpret the Beast Master in an unorthodox way but the great majority of DM can, they just don’t.
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.
Nope. It specifically says "you" and "weapon attack" to get the bonus.
Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6 damage to the target whenever you hit it with a weapon attack
To be fair, both unarmed strikes and natural weapons (like a wolf’s bite) do count as “weapon attacks.” If it said “weapon-attack” it would require a weapon, without the hyphen, the Ranger would still benefit from the spell if the kicked the marked target in the grundel.
As a Ranger (lvl 11), if I cast Hunter's Mark, does it affect my wolf's attacks while in effect?
RAW, no. But, I believe in either season 1 or 2 of CR Campaign 1, Mr. Mercer did give Vex a magic item or something that extended her Hunter’s Mark to her bear companion, Trinket. That’s exactly the kinds of stuff I give to PCs as adventure rewards too. Talk to your DM and see if they are amenable to the idea.
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.
I look at the description as the specific changes to the general rules. Therefore if the description doesn’t mention it, it isn’t changed. Using this perspective, almost all the Beast Master errata is unneeded and doesn’t change anything. For example, they didn’t need to add the errata about the beast’s reaction because the original text didn’t mention the beast’s reaction so the beast had a reaction just like any other creature. The ranger didn’t need to command its reaction because reaction wasn’t listed as something that needed to be commanded. The errata become almost entirely clarification, not changes.
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.
These are just some of the reasons why I think the Beast Master’s “problems” are the result of how DMs are interpreting it.
In my opinion, the problem with Beast Master is the fact that the Ranger and the Beast share actions. If you don't use your action to it command it, it just sits there like a lump. Most times the Ranger is better off using their actions for themselves. Couple that with the fact that they only become more and more of a liability as the Ranger gains levels and faces greater threats.
I don't like to use Critical Role as an example of regular game play, but Vex rarely lets Trinket (her bear) get any where near combat because it is completely ineffective in battle and nearly dies constantly. It isn't fun to having the main "perk" of your subclass to be more of a hindrance than a benefit.
As a Ranger (lvl 11), if I cast Hunter's Mark, does it affect my wolf's attacks while in effect?
Nope. It specifically says "you" and "weapon attack" to get the bonus.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Yet another reason why Beast Master's suck.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Although this has been answered. I wonder if you could use spells to grant the next attack advantage would work well with your wolf if you are able to go before your wolf.
@LeviRocks Hey, now, no need to get snippy. :-) My guy has done pretty well for himself!
@VettatoriLongstrider Is this a particular spell? Sorry—I am not an old D&D hand.
Guiding Bolt is such a spell and yes it would give your pet advantage if it was the first to attack after.
That said - if it’s a wolf then it already has Pack Tactics and you should be making as much use of that as possible.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
No, no offense to you, just Beast Master Ranger is the most criticized subclass in 5e. If you enjoy it, good for you! Until Wizards of the Coast fixes it, I will never recommend it. But, if you enjoy it, and it works well for you, you do you.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It means NOT using Hunter’s Mark, but Beast Bond will give your companion advantage under certain circumstances.
In my opinion, it isn’t WotC that needs to fix the beast master. DMs need to interpret the beast master and the ranger in general in a way that fits their campaign. It is within the DM’s power to make changes. I’ve read a lot of ways that beast master has been interpreted that I agree are just awful, but I put the blame on the DM.
Just for example, if your DM says that the animal companion doesn’t get death saving throws, either walk away or play a different class because that DM isn’t even willing to consider that the animal companion is an important NPC which the PHB explicitly says can be (and should be) given death saving throws.
In this case the DM would simply be ignoring the rules. The rules say every creature gets death saving throws - but that it is up to the DM to ignore certain creatures for the sake of simplicity. Like say if the party is fighting 20 weak enemies - it'd be a pain in the rear to keep track of all those death saving throws every round - so it's easier to just say "they die".
Saying a Ranger's companion doesn't get saving throws isn't for simplicity - it's either done in ignorance or malice.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
DMs who don’t get give animal companions death saves are ********, but that’s not the problem with the beastmaster. The problem is that they spend two entire levels in a situation where either the ranger or the animal companion cannot attack in combat.
It seems like many players see Hunter’s Mark as the defining spell of the ranger class and are then frustrated that it doesn’t work well with Beast Master and concentration means it can’t be used with many other spells. The focus then becomes what the ranger can’t do rather than on what it can.
I would be unhappy with the Beast Master too if that were the way I interpreted it. I look at the description of the Beast Master as changes to the general rules, not as the only things the animal companion can do. This gives the DM the flexibility to allow the ranger to command the animal companion to do anything the DM would allow any other animal NPC to do.
I guess there may be some situations where the DM doesn’t have the leeway to interpret the Beast Master in an unorthodox way but the great majority of DM can, they just don’t.
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.
Ensnaring Strike/Zephyr Strike work with Share Spells and effectively double your usages of them.
To be fair, both unarmed strikes and natural weapons (like a wolf’s bite) do count as “weapon attacks.” If it said “weapon-attack” it would require a weapon, without the hyphen, the Ranger would still benefit from the spell if the kicked the marked target in the grundel.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
RAW, no. But, I believe in either season 1 or 2 of CR Campaign 1, Mr. Mercer did give Vex a magic item or something that extended her Hunter’s Mark to her bear companion, Trinket. That’s exactly the kinds of stuff I give to PCs as adventure rewards too. Talk to your DM and see if they are amenable to the idea.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
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.
I look at the description as the specific changes to the general rules. Therefore if the description doesn’t mention it, it isn’t changed. Using this perspective, almost all the Beast Master errata is unneeded and doesn’t change anything. For example, they didn’t need to add the errata about the beast’s reaction because the original text didn’t mention the beast’s reaction so the beast had a reaction just like any other creature. The ranger didn’t need to command its reaction because reaction wasn’t listed as something that needed to be commanded. The errata become almost entirely clarification, not changes.
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.
These are just some of the reasons why I think the Beast Master’s “problems” are the result of how DMs are interpreting it.
In my opinion, the problem with Beast Master is the fact that the Ranger and the Beast share actions. If you don't use your action to it command it, it just sits there like a lump. Most times the Ranger is better off using their actions for themselves. Couple that with the fact that they only become more and more of a liability as the Ranger gains levels and faces greater threats.
I don't like to use Critical Role as an example of regular game play, but Vex rarely lets Trinket (her bear) get any where near combat because it is completely ineffective in battle and nearly dies constantly. It isn't fun to having the main "perk" of your subclass to be more of a hindrance than a benefit.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I agree. I just checked to see if the Variant Ranger got any help with that, but no.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting