A problem I see is the new change for Disintegrate contradicts the Sage Advice about a disintegrate and a wildshaped druid.
I think the errata corrige could have been even clearer, or why not even mention wildshaped and polymorphed creatures directly. I've always read it so that the creature reverts back to the original form, because it was clear to me that the intent of the shapechanging rules is to add your new form
on top of the original, in a way similar to temporary HP. But it's good to have it somewhat clarified.
Though then it goes on to:
"That’s the literal interpretation of the rules (RAW). In contrast, the intent (RAI) is that a druid isn’t considered to be at 0 hit points for the purposes of an effect like disintegrate until the druid’s normal form is reduced to 0 hit points."
To it's also clear that
RAF always takes precedence on a
local level i.e. your own gaming group.
RAW can be used to resolve short-term disputes in organized play, but
RAI is the most important thing on a
global level i.e. for the whole community. It is idiotic to think that the
designer's intent should be nullified by an editor's mistake or lousy job.
But apparently the role of the Sage (i.e. Crawford) is not in general to talk about RAI but to focus on helping to read the RAW, as a sort of customer support in resolving disputes.
My point was that the errata change isn't going to satisfy the folks who think their Beast Master Ranger should be able to attack and have their companion attack as well. There have been many posts that talk about what a regular non-Ranger animal companion can do, especially if it gets treated like a full NPC. Why should the Beast Master's companion be inferior to that?
Because it is superior in other ways, compared to a Warlock's chained companion or Wizard's familiar.
And I don't think the game should satisfy everyone.
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.
...
If the archetype can't accommodate that, then it needs fixing.
The real issue is that everyone looks at the Beastmaster and think of what it "should" be (a character with a
combat pet) instead of looking at what it actually is (a character with an exploration pet who also has some
limited combat support capabilities), and just try to play along with that, or play something else.
And more generally, a true "combat pet class" is both detrimental
and unnecessary. Detrimental because the players apparently just won't accept to have about the same combat powers as other characters, they always pretend that Ranger + Pet must be
more than one character, because hey they are two! But it is also unnecessary, because as a DM if you really want to be two characters, I'll just let you do that and have a pet tiger that works as an NPC, end of the story.
The main problem with the beastmaster has always been two things that both stem from how the health of the pet is calculated.
...
Second, and more of a concern, is pet survivability.
Once again, this is a concern only if you insist in wanting the pet to be a combat character on par with the rest of the PC, and that's not acceptable from a balance POV and it is unfair to other players.
You have at least two options:
- use the pet for exploration, and for only some
limited combat support (e.g. protecting a weaker party member by threatening with OA, providing flanking or distractions)
- use the pet as a meatshield, accept it gets killed off often, and summon another each time (may be more suitable for an evil Ranger, but why not?)
If you really want a pet that is long-term, fully capable, and as important as a PC, get it as an NPC. Pay for it with some roleplay and by negotiating permission with your DM.