Satyrn
First Post
Or you'd cast find steed during a day of rest and have it and all your slots on adventuring days.
D&D 5E Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour, Nov 27 2018
Or you'd cast find steed during a day of rest and have it and all your slots on adventuring days.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Until it gets hit for 20 damage. The HP never scales, it stays at the Level 2 Spell Slot amount at all levels. Folks aren't satisfied with the Ranger beast scaling, but it does scale.
Kobold Avenger
Legend
Too many people want fighters to be simple, and only have the valid options of Attack Attack Attack, so the options for more depth and breadth in fighting aren't always going to be received well. There's a few things to do with str or dex checks, but that depends on how flexible the DM is in allowing special or unconventional things to happen.
Now 4e's problem with powers was too much of the sameness, and being really fiddly about effects and how much more damage over a standard attack. But I think 5e is slowly introducing ways to manage spells or mathematical equivalents to spells, while making them different from the classic wizard paradigm. I certainly wouldn't mind a character that could cause an area effect attack with Thunder Damage by slamming a hammer into the ground (which would definitely be a magical attack), but it's likely not going to happen in the near future.
cbwjm
Seb-wejem
Almost all versions of DnD have had more casters than non-casters. Open up the 2e PHB and the only classes that don't eventually gain spellcasting are the fighter and thief. Spellcasting might not have been a big part of the paladin and ranger but they still eventually added to their abilities. 3e, only 4 out of 11 classes in the PHB didn't have spellcasting. Really, it isn't all that surprising that 5e has more casters than non-casters.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Nope, which is why those classes have worked best in versions of dnd where there is more to them, like 4e and 5e. And the Rogue hasn't just been a thief since at least 2e.
Why? Why wouldn't there be a subclass that gets a better companion, even if the companion comes from a spell?
In fact, that would be a better solution than the "lose spellcasting to get a pet that can do what most people and the subclass description expect the pet to do".
Still better would be simply adding a spell that makes a summoned or controlled creature stronger and more durable.
The mount doesn't cost your entire spellcasting class feature.
BookBarbarian
Expert Long Rester
The core of the Fighter class is absolutely still fighting. It's a super common complaint around here that they don't get a class specific way to contribute to the other 2 pillars of the game. Any flavor it gets beyond "guy that fights" (if they get any other flavor at all) comes from subclasses.
Likewise a Ranger could totally be a wilderness expert/tracking guy at his core with specialties like knacks/spells/pets existing on the subclass level.
The Rogue has admittedly grown in to skill specialist.
Edit: But I would think adding a pet to the core class wouldn't be a growing of the Ranger concept, like what happened to the Rogue, but a shrinking of it.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Right, because the mount only contributes a single level 2 spells worth of mathematical elements (HP and damage: in this case, 3d10) across ~20 rounds of combat spread across 6-8 encounters (an adventuring day). The PHB Ranger Beast does far more already, and what Mearls is proposing goes waaaaaaaaaay out past the Paladin Mount, by orders of magnitude.
Last edited:
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I agree that the pet should not be a core feature.
The fighter is more than just fighting, though, because subclasses exist. No fighter lacks subclass.
Right, so, they aren’t comparable.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Sure, they are absolutely comparable in mathematical terms: the Ranger Beast is better than the Paladin Mount in every way, except that it can come back. But the Ranger pet is replaceable, and probably should be retrievable on an individual level: easy enough for a DM to supply, and the mega-Beastie seems to have that built-in.
Re: above,
Quick beasty companion idea, when it would die, it may stay alive with exhaustion instead. Maybe multiple levels if multiple death saves or medicine saves are failed.
That way you never "lose" it, "don't worry PandaBear, I'll save you (medicine check).
It only means you may need to care/roleplay/"run to the woods, PandaBear", it until you can heal it up.
But as long as you live it lives.
Just a thought that came to me.
Quick beasty companion idea, when it would die, it may stay alive with exhaustion instead. Maybe multiple levels if multiple death saves or medicine saves are failed.
That way you never "lose" it, "don't worry PandaBear, I'll save you (medicine check).
It only means you may need to care/roleplay/"run to the woods, PandaBear", it until you can heal it up.
But as long as you live it lives.
Just a thought that came to me.
Similar Threads
