Right, it is the invisible baseline that you didn't provide. Or somehow folded into the base class so that when you get a subclass you ruin the fantasy archetype by moving to have multiple beasts. Neither of those really feels me with confidence that you get it or have it.
Trying to act like Im ignoring you because Im disagreeing is hysterics.
Ah, nothing like more insults. Makes me remember that I'm talking to you.
Anecdotal evidence and a crude google search doesn't prove anything. You could just admit you don't speak for anyone but yourself.
Right, so you clearly speak with the majority with your... lack of anecdotal evidence, no google searches and just referencing an ancient TV show most of the modern DnD community has no idea existed. Yeah, totally the sign of someone who speaks with the voice of the people.
That you don't even know what you're saying is telling; trying so hard to win you're not even conscious of what your communicating.
Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true. I compared two things. That doesn't mean I wanted them in a death match against each other. I mean, you do know how to compare two things, right?
Yes it is.
Lets just sit and marinate in why you think this is even remotely relevant or why you think its anything but contrarianism to assert the worst possible take on a class as the thing we should get over the best possible take.
Because good design doesn't just take into account ideal circumstances? Crazy, I know. Sometimes you have to just imagine what might happen outside of the perfect laboratory conditions where everything is perfect.
Its an example of my thoughts and ideas in practice. Hard evidence that if DND followed my line of thinking, it could improve dramatically.
Its only irrelevant to you because its devastating to your goal to win the argument.
No, it is irrelevant because "well if we change all the rules and assumptions" is how you win literally any argument. See, watch.
In my new game I'm making, every time you successfully hit with a spell, you have to roll or be smote by the gods for heresy. Therefore now DnD casters are balanced, because only martial characters can safely take actions.
Sure, if we assume my new game rules are how the game works, then I've changed everything about caster supremacy. But since.... that isn't how DnD works... it is kind of irrelevant. And designing a caster apostate that gets advantage on those saves is rather pointless in a game that doesn't assume those saves are a thing.
Huh, I wonder did I actually say this or are you just asserting an assumption as fact?
Rhetorical question, particularly given I pointed out that the base class would be just as much about the Master and what they do as much as what the various beasts they command can do in common.
This is why responding to every half sentence of my post gives a warped view of what I was saying. Maybe don't do that. Because I address that exact point.
The Beastmaster isn't currently a DND class at all. This entire discussion is about speculative class designs that don't currently exist in DND.
Trying to dismiss ideas because they aren't already in DND is the definition of a cop out.
Here is the entire quote. Read it as ONE thought process. Not whatever snippets of an idea you want to snipe at
Yeah, strange how when people are talking about taking a thing in DnD and remaking it into a class for DnD, someone might start from a baseline of how DnD handles that concept. I mean, sure, maybe you'll have your beasts work on actions with the main character just standing by doing nothing, but that design largely failed in DnD, because people didn't like feeling like their character was doing nothing while the beast did all the work. Which is why it moved to the bonus action design.
And, frankly, you really can't do much other than either an action command or a bonus action command... because those are the only options in DnD. And you can say "but I'll design a system that doesn't use that!" well, good for you, I wish you good sales, but that won't be a DnD class then.
Note how I point out you wouldn't be designing a DnD class if you decided to use a third action type that doesn't exist in DnD? Yes, you are correct. This is speculative design on a DnD class that doesn't exist. But it is speculative design for a SYSTEM that DOES exist. A system limited to actions and bonus actions. There are no other types of actions. IF you design relies on Hyperion Actions which XYZ, then you aren't designing for DnD. See how this entire thought goes together, highlighting how the system has limitations that reflect on the design, instead of some pithy thing you can score points on by pointing out that designing a class that doesn't exist is the point?
Considering I told you in that very quote that what Im talking about doesn't have to use psionics to be delivered, that you're still hung up on the invocation of them is whats telling me you hate psionics and can't let it go. Ie, hate-fire.
You mean in your first post where you totally said it didn't have to be psionics? Right here?
We're speculating on a class that currently doesn't exist. If you want to pull on the original inspiration, Psionics are key to delivering it. Not full Psionics, mind, but a solid dip into it.
And its far more than just commanding the beast. You should read up on the original Beastmaster novels and the Movies.
Oh, wait, sorry. That was the post where you claimed Psionics were key to delivering the Beast Master fantasy, and required a solid dip in Psionics. It was your NEXT post where you said it didn't have to be Psionics, right?
If you present people who are interested in a beast companion with a fully designed class that not only fully captures the depth of what the concept is, but also comes with some awesome and extremely thematic psionic powers, they're going to love it.
Because that concept is awesome and no amount of extremely obvious contrarianism on your part is going to change that.
Oh, wait, no. This is where you doubled down by claiming that if you just did it cool enough people would like it anyways.
Man, this hate fire of mine most be really strong to have gone back in time and altered your posts where your original positon was nothing like what you are trying to claim it is. You'd think if I could travel through time and alter reality, I'd be doing something else.
Most people who buy DND and weren't already playing a previous edition aren't going to have any conception or knowledge of a lot of things within it.
That isn't a reason to not pursue good ideas. And again, its just yet more proof that you apparently can't approach game design in any other way than hacking.
The thought of building something new and not merely cobbling together whats already there is entirely foreign to you, and that explains why no matter how good an explanation you get, you can't accept that in a discussion of speculative classes creating new, bespoke building blocks is more necessary than finding the best way to use woefully inadequate material.
Minigiant has said it more than once in regards to the Ranger; it needs a substantive system built into the game for the Wilderness in order to really work without taking the bad design route of just turning everything into spells.
And yet despite them saying that more than once, I don't see you turning to them and trying so hard to deny that they made a good point.
Could be because their point involves having a decent point instead of "this piece of media I like is clearly superior"
And, I could discuss the issues with a class that needs an entire sub-system to properly work. But I see the idealized version of re-writing the exploration pillar as similar to the idealized version of the crafting rules that makes the Artificer better. It would be nice, but it shouldn't be neccessary. Also, I don't have a problem with rangers having spells. So, their goal of making things not spells doesn't really appeal to me.
