I am sure this question has come up, but I am looking for clarity on whether the Beast Master companion gets the player's proficiency in saving throws via the text:
"Add your proficiency bonus to the beast’s AC, attack rolls, and damage rolls, as well as to any saving throws and skills it is proficient in."
On first glance, it seems like the companion gets advantage on saving throws it is proficient in, despite no such beast existing with such a saving throw proficiency. But I've seen some argument that this is a place of ambiguity in the text, because an Oxford comma is absent.
It seems to make sense that the beast would get the master's proficiency mechanically and lore wise. And I'll take anything that makes such a fun subclass less punishing to actually play as.
Edit: The UA revised ranger makes it clear that the proficiency goes to all the companion's saving throws, so I think in gameplay I will just go with that.
Beasts do get skills they are proficient in so, that part is easy. I would gather that the beast gets the master's proficiency bonus to all saves which would be a big deal as many beasts have some negatives.
Seems like an oversight, since few creatures get proficiency in saves, and no possible companions do.
I've seen something from one of the developers about it being "future-proofing" for creatures in future supplements, but that is backward logic. You don't future-proof something in favor of a future mechanic, especially such a niche concept of one that it hasn't happened in 7 years of supplements.
Yeah, poor editing and playtesting, I don't think they realized that so few beasts received any sort of save proficiency, and none at 1/4 CR or below. That doesn't mean that the rule doesn't mean exactly what it says though, the Beast certainly doesn't get master's proficiency added to all of their nonproficient saves (all of them).
the UA ranger is a completely different construction. There are plusses and minuses to it, CR isn't a great measure of how useful a given ally is, but it's strange to have companions be structurally different from the NPC version.
Interestingly, if you make a homebrew beast with Saves, it does add correctly the Beast’s Proficiency Bonus and the Ranger’s Proficiency Bonus on DnD Beyond (which amounted to a +5 to Saves across the board for my Level 5 Beast Master). That is probably the only change I’d make for Beast Master to be honest - the only weakness of the beasts right now is the inability to make a single save and that becomes devastating later on without some careful planning.
The sentence "Add your proficiency bonus to the beast’s AC, attack rolls, and damage rolls, as well as to any saving throws and skills it is proficient in." doesn't get flagged by Word as a run-on sentence, and doesn't read as one to my ear.
"...to any saving throws and skills it is proficient in" is a coherent clause, there's no ambiguity that another comma would clear up.
"...to any saving throws, and..." makes no sense, because every creature creature has the same six saving throw categories, so the word "any" would be bizarre to use to refer to the regular six saving throw categories. Other abilities that are intended to be applied to all saving throws use the phrasing "to saving throws." (see e.g. Ring of Protection "+1 bonus to AC and saving throws while wearing this ring."). "Any saving throws... it is proficient in" makes sense, "Any saving throws" on its own is jilted and unreasonable.
You can read it as you'd like to "fix" the rule, I'm in agreement that it's poor design to give a class a feature that doesn't actually have an application with any published Beasts. But the RAW is quite clear, and isn't a result of the editors missing a comma.
If you want to believe that they actually did plan to include beasts with with proficient saves to have this rules make sense, you do that. For those people who want this rule to make sense and be of value now, I urge you to just add your proficiency to the beasts saving throw. I'm done making post here and I don't give a rip what RAW says if it includes an element that can't be used due to literal wording interpretation.
If you want to believe that they actually did plan to include beasts with with proficient saves to have this rules make sense, you do that.
Pretty sure the original concept was that the ranger's proficiency bonus adds to the beast's, so in any place where the beast adds its proficiency bonus it also adds the ranger's, and they included saves in the list because any boilerplate list of traits that can be modified by proficiency will include saves.
As someone, as a player and a DM, who enjoys altering the star blocks of creatures, for both NPCs and ranger beast companions, I can tell you that the DMG has a great section on how to do it and what, if any, effect doing so has on the NPCs CR. Having proficiency in 1 or 2 saving throws does NOT alter an NPCs CR. So enjoy!
As someone, as a player and a DM, who enjoys altering the star blocks of creatures, for both NPCs and ranger beast companions, I can tell you that the DMG has a great section on how to do it and what, if any, effect doing so has on the NPCs CR. Having proficiency in 1 or 2 saving throws does NOT alter an NPCs CR. So enjoy!
Yes, that's correct. Here's the math, for anyone who doesn't want to go looking:
0-2 saving throw proficienies: +0 effective AC
3-4: +2
5-6: +4
Calculate CR partially based on AC as normal (I'd post the algorithm, but there's a weird hiccup at level 9 violating it and I don't want to confuse anyone; this hiccup is also why CR 9 monsters are routinely slightly underpowered).
As someone, as a player and a DM, who enjoys altering the star blocks of creatures, for both NPCs and ranger beast companions, I can tell you that the DMG has a great section on how to do it and what, if any, effect doing so has on the NPCs CR. Having proficiency in 1 or 2 saving throws does NOT alter an NPCs CR. So enjoy!
Yes, that's correct. Here's the math, for anyone who doesn't want to go looking:
0-2 saving throw proficienies: +0 effective AC
3-4: +2
5-6: +4
Calculate CR partially based on AC as normal (I'd post the algorithm, but there's a weird hiccup at level 9 violating it and I don't want to confuse anyone; this hiccup is also why CR 9 monsters are routinely slightly underpowered).
Wait, so is it ok to assume that the beast can apply the bonus to its death saves???
I do not think it is ok to assume this, no.
Like much of the game, and with the ranger class in particular, a LOT is left up to the individual DM. There is just no clear cut “clean” RAW way to say for sure the beast companion gets death saving throws. Is it wrong if the DM does give them death saving throws? Not even a little. Is there precedent for in both the revised ranger and Tasha’s variant? Yes! Do other things in the PHB (find steed, find familiar, conjure animals) specifically say what happens when the creature gets to zero hit points? Yep!
Like much of the game, and with the ranger class in particular, a LOT is left up to the individual DM. There is just no clear cut “clean” RAW way to say for sure the beast companion gets death saving throws. Is it wrong if the DM does give them death saving throws? Not even a little. Is there precedent for in both the revised ranger and Tasha’s variant? Yes! Do other things in the PHB (find steed, find familiar, conjure animals) specifically say what happens when the creature gets to zero hit points? Yep!
A GM ruling that the companion doesn't get death saves is just being a dick, but the discussion at hand is granting the PHB companion proficiency in death saves like the TCOE companion gets.
“A GM ruling that the companion doesn't get death saves is just being a dick...” LOL! Yep! 100%
“...the discussion at hand is granting the PHB companion proficiency in death saves like the TCOE companion gets.” Ah. I’d say no. Tasha’s variant addresses two major complaints with the subclass: bonus action commands and survivability.
I am sure this question has come up, but I am looking for clarity on whether the Beast Master companion gets the player's proficiency in saving throws via the text:
"Add your proficiency bonus to the beast’s AC, attack rolls, and damage rolls, as well as to any saving throws and skills it is proficient in."
On first glance, it seems like the companion gets advantage on saving throws it is proficient in, despite no such beast existing with such a saving throw proficiency. But I've seen some argument that this is a place of ambiguity in the text, because an Oxford comma is absent.
It seems to make sense that the beast would get the master's proficiency mechanically and lore wise. And I'll take anything that makes such a fun subclass less punishing to actually play as.
Edit: The UA revised ranger makes it clear that the proficiency goes to all the companion's saving throws, so I think in gameplay I will just go with that.
Beasts do get skills they are proficient in so, that part is easy. I would gather that the beast gets the master's proficiency bonus to all saves which would be a big deal as many beasts have some negatives.
Seems like an oversight, since few creatures get proficiency in saves, and no possible companions do.
I've seen something from one of the developers about it being "future-proofing" for creatures in future supplements, but that is backward logic. You don't future-proof something in favor of a future mechanic, especially such a niche concept of one that it hasn't happened in 7 years of supplements.
Yeah, poor editing and playtesting, I don't think they realized that so few beasts received any sort of save proficiency, and none at 1/4 CR or below. That doesn't mean that the rule doesn't mean exactly what it says though, the Beast certainly doesn't get master's proficiency added to all of their nonproficient saves (all of them).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
the UA ranger is a completely different construction. There are plusses and minuses to it, CR isn't a great measure of how useful a given ally is, but it's strange to have companions be structurally different from the NPC version.
Interestingly, if you make a homebrew beast with Saves, it does add correctly the Beast’s Proficiency Bonus and the Ranger’s Proficiency Bonus on DnD Beyond (which amounted to a +5 to Saves across the board for my Level 5 Beast Master). That is probably the only change I’d make for Beast Master to be honest - the only weakness of the beasts right now is the inability to make a single save and that becomes devastating later on without some careful planning.
I'm going to just go ahead and read it as if it were:
...as well as to any saving throws, and skills it is proficient in.
To specifically get what some of you are reading, it would be worded as:
...as well as to any saving throws and skills, it is proficient in.
The comma placement makes all the difference in the world. The initial problem is that the rule is a run on sentence.
The sentence "Add your proficiency bonus to the beast’s AC, attack rolls, and damage rolls, as well as to any saving throws and skills it is proficient in." doesn't get flagged by Word as a run-on sentence, and doesn't read as one to my ear.
"...to any saving throws and skills it is proficient in" is a coherent clause, there's no ambiguity that another comma would clear up.
"...to any saving throws, and..." makes no sense, because every creature creature has the same six saving throw categories, so the word "any" would be bizarre to use to refer to the regular six saving throw categories. Other abilities that are intended to be applied to all saving throws use the phrasing "to saving throws." (see e.g. Ring of Protection "+1 bonus to AC and saving throws while wearing this ring."). "Any saving throws... it is proficient in" makes sense, "Any saving throws" on its own is jilted and unreasonable.
You can read it as you'd like to "fix" the rule, I'm in agreement that it's poor design to give a class a feature that doesn't actually have an application with any published Beasts. But the RAW is quite clear, and isn't a result of the editors missing a comma.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
If you want to believe that they actually did plan to include beasts with with proficient saves to have this rules make sense, you do that. For those people who want this rule to make sense and be of value now, I urge you to just add your proficiency to the beasts saving throw. I'm done making post here and I don't give a rip what RAW says if it includes an element that can't be used due to literal wording interpretation.
Pretty sure the original concept was that the ranger's proficiency bonus adds to the beast's, so in any place where the beast adds its proficiency bonus it also adds the ranger's, and they included saves in the list because any boilerplate list of traits that can be modified by proficiency will include saves.
Wait, so is it ok to assume that the beast can apply the bonus to its death saves???
As someone, as a player and a DM, who enjoys altering the star blocks of creatures, for both NPCs and ranger beast companions, I can tell you that the DMG has a great section on how to do it and what, if any, effect doing so has on the NPCs CR. Having proficiency in 1 or 2 saving throws does NOT alter an NPCs CR. So enjoy!
Yes, that's correct. Here's the math, for anyone who doesn't want to go looking:
0-2 saving throw proficienies: +0 effective AC
3-4: +2
5-6: +4
Calculate CR partially based on AC as normal (I'd post the algorithm, but there's a weird hiccup at level 9 violating it and I don't want to confuse anyone; this hiccup is also why CR 9 monsters are routinely slightly underpowered).
Here are some useful free online tools.
https://1-dot-encounter-planner.appspot.com/quick-monster-stats.html
https://********/crcalculator.html#0,13,1,3,false,Medium,1,10,false,0,false,0,
https://tetra-cube.com/dnd/dnd-statblock.html
Also, I’ve never seen (or been) a DM that did not give the beast companion death saving throws.
I do not think it is ok to assume this, no.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Like much of the game, and with the ranger class in particular, a LOT is left up to the individual DM. There is just no clear cut “clean” RAW way to say for sure the beast companion gets death saving throws. Is it wrong if the DM does give them death saving throws? Not even a little. Is there precedent for in both the revised ranger and Tasha’s variant? Yes! Do other things in the PHB (find steed, find familiar, conjure animals) specifically say what happens when the creature gets to zero hit points? Yep!
A GM ruling that the companion doesn't get death saves is just being a dick, but the discussion at hand is granting the PHB companion proficiency in death saves like the TCOE companion gets.
“A GM ruling that the companion doesn't get death saves is just being a dick...” LOL! Yep! 100%
“...the discussion at hand is granting the PHB companion proficiency in death saves like the TCOE companion gets.” Ah. I’d say no. Tasha’s variant addresses two major complaints with the subclass: bonus action commands and survivability.
I was saying I don't think it's safe to assume the death saves would get a bonus.
"Not all those who wander are lost"