I notice that every Class now gets their spells specified as "[Class X] spells"rather than just spells. Is this is some sort of anti-cheese maneuver by the devs?
I wish they hadn't. I'm not sure, but I think this makes multi-classing between casters more complex and annoying. I get that they want to avoid "cheese", but IMO they go a bit too far with this one.
I've seen some people willfully misinterpret the way multiclassing works in order to prepare spells they shouldn't (usually via ignoring the big rule where you treat spells known and preparation as if you were only a single member of that class). This is just to help shut those people up.
I don't think it only does that, though. I'll have to dig into it more after the weekend, bc it's gonna be a busy one, though.
I'm sure I'm not the only one disappointed in the Beast Master changes, I think many of us were expecting something stronger than this:
Continuing the previously-issued command on subsequent rounds would've been a much more compelling choice, it's unclear if that would've been enough to fix the Beast Master but this certainly doesn't feel sufficient.
Agreed. It's...better than nothing, but the beast is still simply inferior except for HP totals at higher levels than a non-subclass granted beast you've simply trained to fight with you. I'm not sure the BM even stands up next to the Hunter ranger, or any of the newer Rangers. I've pretty much given up, and am working on a revision of the revised ranger. Even adding in some new BM oriented spells that buff a critter commanded by the ranger (a type of spell I'd love to see in the game, for rangers, paladins, and chain warlocks) isn't going to fix the fact that you're usually better off making your own attacks, and the beast is just a body on the field with you in a fight, while the Hunter gets pretty solid damage boosts that it can't lose for the rest of the adventuring day because a saving throw was failed.
Sure, if you're using the optional flanking rules then having a safe way to get perma-advantage seems okay (i.e. have the companion just spend the entire fight giving you the flanking bonus and Dodging to stay safe).
I really think that the best fix for the BM is just to let it have a turn, but abbreviate what it can do on that turn, and boost it's damage per attack and it's HP. SO, basically the revised BM minus the "let your beast attack again instead of extra attack" nonsense.
That's just ridiculous. There is exactly one "pet class" in the game, so if that's what you want to run you have no other options. Furthermore, if you can't acknowledge that it is a problem for this subclass to have either the Beastmaster or the pet be, in essence, a spectator for the other, then you're not making an argument in good faith here. People generally don't want to play a pet class just to have a mount, although that's certainly a viable way to play the beastmaster. Most people who choose the Beastmaster archetype do so because they want their character and their pet to fight alongside one another. If the archetype can't accommodate that, then it needs fixing.
There is also the chain warlock, to be fair. I really wish they'd literally just made the BM pet a familiar that you can't change the shape of, and that can be any beast of a certain challenge rating, and it can attack. Or what I wrote above.