Before accusing anyone of dishonesty, you should consider the meaning of the word "especially" and how it might reasonably be interpreted by others reading your argument. "Cake is delicious, especially when it's chocolate" != "Cake is delicious when it's chocolate".
That's even MORE dishonest than what you wrote last time. "Especially" in that context meant "in light of" the fact that I established the Ranger's connection to the beast as magical, which it clearly is on some level.
You assumed that I was arguing against monks and druids having this feature, and you have also repeatedly cited monks and druids as reason for rangers having this feature. I was succinctly rebutting both points. That I was simply stating the obvious (though not an actual tautology) only underscores the shakiness of your assumptions.
You didn't rebut anything.
That's like saying fireball is inelegant, cluttery, and a spell tax, and it'd be more elegant if sorcerers just got the ability to throw fire as a class feature. Doing the magic thing within the established mechanical framework for doing magic things is more elegant than doing the magic thing through an ad hoc entry in the class feature list.
Fireball is established as a spell
from the very start of 5e. Bypassing DR/magical is established as a class feature
from the very start of 5e. Your equivalency is false.
On the other hand, when ranger-type characters encounter restless spirits in Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones, both of them have to acquire and use magic weapons to deal with the problem. Now, admittedly, Aragorn doesn't have an animal companion -- but Jon Snow does, and it's still the weapon rather than the wolf that's effective against the White Walkers.
Then the Beast Ranger as written clearly does a poor job of making a Jon Snow-type Ranger. The new Beast Conclave Ranger doesn't even get Extra Attack, which would signify Jon Snow's ability to actually, you know, fight with his weapon.*
(*That's not even considering that in the ASOIAF books at least, notably A Dance With Dragons, that some sort of magical connection between Jon Snow and Ghost
is pretty heavily implied, but that's another can of worms altogether.)
So you adapt the tactics to fit the particular challenge. That's the point. Forcecage has size limits too, for what it's worth: anything that can fit into the solid-sided version can also be tripped or grappled by a Medium creature, and the barred version of course comes with its own drawbacks. It's a spell that can be very strong or not so strong, depending on the circumstances, which is what makes it interesting. If it were strong unconditionally, it would be poor game design and a spell tax.
And then said spellcaster uses another spell that's just as good for a different situation. They can do that. The Beast Ranger has ... what exactly?
Your argument is based on the assumption that everyone gets the key, if not always through a class feature. You call it "the same thing that literally every other character is able to do 100% passively in some form or fashion".
And what I meant was that because Barbarians/Fighters/non-Beast Rangers/Paladins/etc. make ALL their attacks with their weapon, then if they find a magic weapon, they're breaking DR/magical with their
entire offensive capability. I've made that pretty clear the whole time, you've just chosen not to acknowledge it.
The Beast Ranger, even if it FINDS a magical weapon, is only going to have it benefit one of the attacks Ranger + Beast make on their turn. Because said Beast Ranger only makes 1 attack/turn. The rest of the attacks go to the beast. So DR/magical hurts the Beast Ranger (w/ a magical weapon) far more than it hurts any other weapon-wielding character.
Players making meaningful decisions.
So what makes a decision meaningful? And does Beast Master as written have the capacity to make meaningful decisions?
I can tell you that second question's answer is no.
The word "passively" is a big warning sign right there.
But why?
Then the mechanic that creates this necessity, nonmagical resistance, is bad for the game precisely because it creates this necessity and adds nothing positive to gameplay.
Hey, a conclusion I just might agree with.
You complain about spell tax, but what you're describing here is a feature tax, and you seem for some reason to be enthusiastically in favor of the situation.
I've been proposing since forever to replace the proficiency bonus to damage with bypassing DR/magical in the page-long Companion's Bond entry.
