Is the Beast Master Broken? Examining D&D’s Most Misunderstood Archetype
One of Dungeons & Dragons archetypes has been the subject of more internet debates and angry Facebook posts than any other. It seems as though almost everyone who has laid eyes on the Beast Master, the second archetype for the ranger class in the fifth edition Player’s Handbook, has some sort of problem with it. Ever since the Player’s Handbook release in 2014, social media has echoed with the outcry of “The Beast Master is broken!” It’s one of the most polarizing topics of this edition of Dungeons & Dragons, and the debate needs to be settled. Is the Beast Master broken?
The answer is yes, the Beast Master is broken.
But perhaps that’s a misleading statement. The Beast Master may be broken, yet that word may not mean what you think it means. Gamers use the word “broken” as a catchall for a litany of disparate complaints, which is great for discovering that a problem exists, but terrible for actually addressing that problem. If you’re a Dungeon Master and you want to try and fix the broken Beast Master’s at your table, you need to know exactly what you’re fixing. And if you’re a player who thinks the Beast Master is broken, you’d better figure out exactly what’s wrong so you can work with your DM to make your experience more fun.
What's Wrong with the Beast Master?
In D&D, we call a part of the game broken because it’s one of three things: not fun to play (or literally unplayable), not fun to play with, or not fun to adjudicate as a Dungeon Master. Of all these complaints, it is the first that dominates this discussion; people just don’t like playing Beast Masters. These three qualities are completely subjective, of course, but they have been so pervasive (and even extending to the ranger class as a whole) that even Wizards of the Coast has taken note of them and released several new visions for the ranger and the Beast Master for public playtesting through Unearthed Arcana.
One common complaint is that the Beast Master isn’t fun to play because it isn’t as powerful in combat as other classes, or even other ranger archetypes. The reasons cited are usually that the animal companion is too weak numerically, it can’t act in combat unless the ranger spends an action to command it, and (now that Xanathar’s Guide to Everything has been released) it doesn’t get any bonus ranger spells. Since so many of Dungeons & Dragons’ rules and player options are geared towards combat, concerns of being underpowered in combat are of primary concern for most players.
So what is a player (or a player-conscious Dungeon Master) to do?
When I ran Princes of the Apocalypse around its release in 2015, one of my players decided to play an air genasi Beast Master with a hawk companion (reskinned as an osprey, but that’s neither here nor there). Even then, I had caught wind of the foul press surrounding the Beast Master, and wanted to make sure my ranger player wasn’t walking into a trap option. We talked it over and eventually decide to give her hawk companion a few buffs to make it more powerful in combat. We decided on two things: first, it could attack independently after being directed to attack a creature. Second, we opted to give it one fighter level for every four levels she had in ranger. These changes seemed perfectly reasonable.
By 20th level, this bird had probably killed more creatures than anyone else in the party, and my players had taken to calling her companion “Murder Bird.” It became a badass animal companion, but I emerged from that campaign feeling that maybe I had put my thumb on the scale a little too hard.
Dan Dillon on Fixing What's Broken and Learning What Isn't
That campaign has been over for about a year now, but I’ve been thinking about how I could have made my ranger player’s experience smoother. I decided to speak with Dan Dillon, a game designer who has created Fifth Edition-compatible adventures and player content for Kobold Press, an excellent adventure for the D&D Adventurer’s League, and has even contributed to an undisclosed project with Wizards of the Coast. He’s also a moderator of a Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition Facebook group boasting over 100,000 members, and is a battle-scarred veteran of the Beast Master arguments there. He’s seen every viewpoint imaginable on this issue, he's played a Beast Master ranger from 1st to 20th level, and judging by his headshot, he's probably a Beast Master himself! He’s the perfect person to ask for insight.
One of the first things I asked Dan about was if we could separate signal from noise on this argument. What criticism of the Beast Master are valid, and what criticisms are simply off-base? The first thing he told me was he played his ranger without any house rules and was incredibly effective. He suggests that people who have had “awful experiences with the Beast Master” might need to reread the Beast Companion feature in the Player’s Handbook and be sure they aren’t missing any of the myriad little buffs the animal companion gets. Most of the perceived mechanical weaknesses of the Beast Master come from an incomplete understanding of the Fifth Edition rules.
Most of my woes in my Princes of the Apocalypse campaign, Dan assures me, came from my player selecting a CR 0 animal companion. Of course a CR 0 hawk isn’t going to fight very well, it only does a few points of damage! I didn’t need to give it fighter levels in order to give it more hit points, it gets more hit points naturally as the ranger levels up. It even gets to attack and take aiding actions without consuming the ranger’s action as the ranger gets more class features! Rather than haphazardly throwing buffs on this weak animal, it would have been simpler to just insist that my ranger player use a CR 1/4 beast instead.
But some of these mechanical woes were not without precedent. A quick reading of the Beast Master archetype shows that the Beast Companion class feature suggests taking a hawk (or a mastiff or a panther) as an animal companion! Dan says that it’s “setting [a player] up for failure…you should not take challenge rating 0 beasts. But if you do want to do that, work with your DM and ask if you can just have a falcon companion that you’ve trained,” and choose a ranger archetype like Hunter instead.
That said, this option isn’t available to people with rules-adherent DMs or those who are a part of Organized Play. That is a flaw of the Beast Master; it’s inflexible. If you want its combat ability to be on par with similar characters, you need to know what the good options are and optimize your build (yuck). This may be a fun puzzle for veteran gamers, but poses a discouraging barrier to entry for new players. Not only do you need to know how disastrously poor at fighting a CR 0 beast is compared to a CR ¼ creature, but you have to know what books to look in (including asking the DM to let you use the Monster Manual or even the monster appendix for Tomb of Annihilation), and then you need to do a bunch of calculations to improve its stats. It’s not impossible, but it’s not everyone’s cup of tea, either.
Dan’s recommended animal companions are flying snakes for flight without sacrificing much damage, wolves for pack tactics and their keen senses, giant poisonous snakes for swimming and truly incredible damage and accuracy, and pteranodons if you’re playing in Tomb of Annihilation. If you’re playing a halfling or a gnome, you can use this flying dinosaur as a mount. That’s incredible!
If you want a second opinion, the gentlemen at Nerdarchy have a video on their 5 favorite Beast Master companions.
Also note, according to admins the D&D Adventurer’s League, where character builds are limited to the Player’s Handbook plus one other book, monster stat blocks do not count as your +1. So, if you really want to optimize your Beast Master, you can use the beasts in Volo’s Guide to Monsters or Tomb of Annihilation while still using another book.
Taking all that into consideration, the Beast Master is in a strong place mechanically. Dan says one underappreciated aspect of the Beast Master is that its animal companion simply adds another body to the players’ side, allowing rogues in the party to Sneak Attack more often, other players to get advantage more often (through the Help action and possibly Pack Tactics), and by allowing the ranger seriously improved battlefield control, as the animal companion can attack enemies on the other side of cover the ranger can’t shoot behind, get on top of elevated terrain if it can fly, and even serve as a mount if your ranger is Small and the companion is Medium.
But don’t think for a moment that the Beast Master is perfect. While it's possible that the incredible outcry over this archetype is all due to people not reading the Player’s Handbook closely enough or the archetype requiring too much system mastery, it's more likely that there are some problems with the archetype that a close reading of the rules can't solve. One of Dan’s chief concerns is that, unlike the trio of new ranger subclasses presented in Xanathar’s Guide to Everything, the Beast Master (and the Hunter) lack bonus spells to supplement their “very tiny number of spells known [as compared to paladins who prepare spells like a cleric].”
Maybe in a future article on D&D Beyond, Dan could show us the bonus spell lists for Beast Masters and Hunters that he's house ruled to improve their power level in games he runs.
Final Verdict
I never directly asked Dan if the Beast Master was “broken” or not. That’s not what I wanted to learn from him, because I knew from the word go that the Beast Master was broken, I just needed to learn how it was... and how it wasn't. As it turns out, the Beast Master is not broken mechanically; it’s broken in a subtler, more insidious way. A way that’s harder to fix than changing a few calculations and printing errata.
In fact, the Beast Master is quite mechanically sound, if played in a certain way. The rub is that most players have no idea what this specific way of having fun as a Beast Master is! The Beast Master is one of the most complex and choice-dependent archetypes in the entire Player’s Handbook, but the book provides no help on how to navigate its many incredibly important choices. Spellcasters like wizards and clerics face a similar problem, but there’s a significant difference: most of the spells a spellcaster picks aren’t central to their identity. If you’ve ever seen Critical Role, try to imagine Vex’ahlia without her bear Trinket. If Pike, the party cleric, didn’t like a spell she chose, she could switch it out the next morning with no trouble; specific spells aren't part of her identity, but Trinket is essential to Vex’s character.
This highlights another problem of the Beast Master that, while it doesn’t strictly make the archetype weaker in combat, does make it less fun to play: animal companion death. For most Beast Masters, their animal companion is like another character in terms of emotional weight, but the game rules don’t treat it that way. While most player characters in D&D are expected to be resurrected if they die (after a certain point), all the Player’s Handbook has to say if an animal companion dies is: “If the beast dies, you can obtain another one by spending 8 hours magically bonding with another beast that isn’t hostile to you, either the same type of beast or a different one.” It expects you to do the equivalent of rolling up a new character named Bob II after your first character, Bob, was killed by a wandering monster.
For players that invest emotionally in the lives of their animal companions, like Laura Bailey and her ranger Vex’ahlia, this just isn’t fun. If you’re playing at home and not in the Adventurer’s League where strict adherence to the rules is necessary, consider this house rule that Dan and I hashed out about in our conversion: “As a Beast Master, you can spend 8 hours performing a ritual of resurrection that returns your dead animal companion to life if it died of means other than old age.”
Even if you don’t use this house rule, the animal companion should at least be able to roll death saves. The Player’s Handbook says “special nonplayer characters” are supposed to fall unconscious and roll death saving throws when reduced to 0 hit points, just like player characters. You’re just being a jerk if you don’t consider animal companions special NPCs.
If the Beast Master’s problem is one of system mastery and misplaced emotional expectations, what is the best way to “fix” this “broken” archetype in play? If you’re a player, you’re practically there already just because you’ve read this article. Choose a powerful animal companion when you first choose this archetype, and make sure you’re communicating well with your Dungeon Master about little rules interactions like whether or not animal companions get death saving throws.
If you’re a Dungeon Master looking to make life easier for a player who wants to be a Beast Master, then start by talking with your player about what kind of beast they want to choose. If it’s something small like a hawk, a squirrel, or some other inconsequential CR 0 creature, consider letting that player play as a Hunter ranger instead with a minor noncombatant companion instead.
The Beast Master may be broken, but clear communication and a little ingenuity can fix it. Happy hunting!
James Haeck is a D&D fan, frequent paladin player, and a lover of roleplaying and tactical combat in equal measure. He lives in Seattle, Washington with his two animal companions, Mei and Marzipan, and writes as a freelancer for Wizards of the Coast, the D&D Adventurer's League, Kobold Press, and EN Publishing. You can usually find him wasting time on Twitter at @jamesjhaeck.
I'm currently playing a beast master with a black jaguar companion, I'm having a blast with it, it's my first time playing D&D as well, thD dungeon master helped me a lot with the panther's stats and all. The last play time my jaguar got 0 hit points due to a firebolt from a wizard, but the DM let me be able to roll death saves to it and for god sake my jaguar is well right now. I would cry if it dies.
I also did an illustration of my character and her Jaguar: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/qGEvn
How to fix PHB Ranger: Play UA Revised Ranger and choose a giant crab animal companion. Simple as that.
God what a mess.
First off, the writing style is fine, none of the critique has to do with the tone of the article, except maybe to refute any and all of the insistence that optimizing stuff is somehow bad.
But the idea that PHB Beast Master Ranger isn't bad is ludicrous. Where there is smoke, there is fire and everyone has been shouting smoke for a very long time now. Being forced into choices just to remain marginal or average is broken. Failing at the basic premise that people are expecting out of your class, i.e. your companion dying and being replaced by an entirely new animal, is broken. Some issues are with the base Ranger as is, sure, and I understand the issues brought up and presented as true issues, but this kind of reactionary downplaying is just unjustifiable.
As a player, I have turned to playing Pact of the Chain Warlocks and similar to achieve the kind of results I'd like from something labelled as a Beast Master. At least that way I can feel like my companion and I have really bonded. The failure to live up to the ideal that so, so many people have been asking for is just frustrating.
As a DM, watching people fall into what has been clearly labelled as a trap is frustrating, explaining to them that it's a trap is frustrating, working out a fix is frustrating (mostly because a fix is annoying to implement with such a set character sheet etc)
When UA was announced as going to be put up on DnDBeyond, I was hopeful that it would be retroactive and I could deal with the UA Ranger, at least when a character is overpowered inherently, people can fail to play it optimally and end up being average, watching an average player playing a severely ****** class and being punished through no fault of their own except an inane attention to detail I wouldn't expect from anyone is frustrating.
I think the only real problem with the Beast Master archetype is that it takes your action to have the companion attack. This means that for your companion to attack, you don't get to. We've been using a bonus action to have the companion attack and that seems to fix the problem. It means the ranger cannot attack with two weapons or cast a bonus action spell while having their companion attack, but that seems a much better trade off than losing your action.
"Omg why is my fighter shitty. I hit everything with my fists. Fk getting tavern brawler, i shouldn't have to take that feat to be good."
So all of us complaining are just layabouts who have nothing better to do? Come on, I think even Mr Haeck would agree, those of us who have issues with the PHB ranger are not acting disingenuously- trust me: I / We truly honestly faithfully confirm that the PHB Beast Master is NOT very fun, and certainly nowhere near as fun as UA Revised Ranger. I get that the latter might (keyword: might) be a teensy bit OP at early levels but this is not an either/or situation. We should be able to find a compromise so that everyone is having fun and we stop sniping at one another!
Fully agree. Combine Kitasi's solution with improvement in Natural Explorer, Primeval Awareness and Favoured Enemy (For all rangers, not just Beast Masters) and we are well on our way to a workable fix!
Thinking about it, my major issue is that it takes your action to get your beast to do anything other than move. If they had the minimum functionality of a familiar or a mount I imagine a lot of my own issues would be cleared up.
Then it's only fixing the HP for higher tier play.
Take a wolf as a pet for a 5th level beast master. Add +3 proficiency bonus, 4 x Ranger level for max hp:
AC: 16, HP 20, +6 perception, +7 stealth, +7 to hit, 2d4+5 for damage +DC11 save or target goes prone. Average damage is 10.
Has advantage on perception checks for sight and smell. Advantage on attack if it's next to a friendly. Gets reaction attacks at no penalty to the ranger.
Ranger w/Longbow, Elf with one ASI so we will assume 18 dex. 5th level has two attacks, one of which the wolf can use.
+9 to hit, 1d8+4 damage +1d6 for Hunter's mark. Average damage 11.
So the Wolf average damage is 1 less. If used right the wolf gets advantage on its attack and has a chance to give advantage to your melee friends(knock prone, or optional flanking rule).
If the Ranger is melee based with Dueling fighting style.
Longsword(versatile): +7 to hit, 1d10+6 (two-handed) + 1d6 for hunter's mark. Average damage 14.
This time the wolf is down 4 damage average. But if you move together it has advantage from you and can give you advantage(knock prone, or optional flanking rule).
I personally would be willing to make these kinds of trade offs. All the way up until we start fighting monsters that have resistance to non-magical attacks. Then the pet would really begin to feel like dead weight to me. Even with it getting two attacks or multi-attack at 11th level I don't think it would make up for the damage loss to resistance for the pet. Then we have to think about any improvements that magic items might add to the ranger but not the pet. And the problem with possible permanent death of your pet. Can it be effective? Yes, I think so. Is it optimal? No.
can't wearwon't have magic items? In 5E, magic items resize themselves to fit the wearer. Companions have necks. Companions have feet. Companions have backs. Some companions even have fingers, so they can wear rings and wield simple magic weapons."It even gets to attack and take aiding actions without consuming the ranger’s action as the ranger gets more class features!"
I don't think this is correct. The "Exceptional Training" feature specifically excludes Attack from the list of commands that you can give it on a bonus action.
Now you are arguing semantics and this is not productive, and it seems you just wish to argue for the sake of it.