Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8053527" data-attributes="member: 12731">First off, the beastbaster ranger is in my opinion not worth the paper it's printed on. (The animal companions of Pathfinder 2 doesn't fare much better)But that said, you have a point, and I should provide greater context.My position is that any beastmaster player that wants to be able to sustain the fantasy of finding a tiger or dire wolf in the forest, and creating a close friendship over the years as the pair has adventures and level up together... ...need an inherently unbalanced Ranger subclass. One where the ranger itself isn't nerfed into half-strength (and thus becomes unfun to play) and more importantly where the beast isn't nerfed into being a mere appendix to the character, since that means it becomes too fragile to actually be used as a melee brawler. Look, for a summoner or necromancer or shaman, the summons or skeletons or spirit animals are fundamentally disposable. If they die, you get a new one. That's not what many beastmaster players is looking for. They want - nay need - a class where the animal companion is treated as a friend, as a party member, a valued contributor, as someone that isn't more likely to die than any other party member, not the weakest link in the chain. And more to the point: not any more likely to die than any other melee frontliner in the party. (The archer or wizard might get away with poor defense stats since they stay at range. A tiger or dire wolf isn't staying at range.) If it isn't strong enough, it feels like animal cruelty to send it to its death. So the only way to implement a satisfactory beastmaster is to be open with the fact that while master + companion might not need to equal 1+1=2 characters, they sure need to represent more than 1/2+1/2=1. (Most likely, we're talking about 9/10+6/10=1 1/2 or thereabouts). Yes, the subclass needs to be clearly and explicitly overpowered, or at least one of its two constituent parts will feel uselessly weak. So the only fair way to implement a Beastmaster subclass that respects how many humans find the killing of animals more upsetting than the killing of monsters and NPCs is to make it opt-in. A little sidebar explaining that the subclass needs the approval of every party member as well as the DM. Making it clear we're talking about an optional rule.So while, yes, both 5E and PF2 has "solved" the issue of overpowered animal companions, they did so by throwing out the baby with the bathwater, at least if you agree with my basic definition of an "animal friend". They created animal companions impossible to keep alive (unless you don't send them into battle in the first place, in which case I'd rather play a different subclass entirely, thanks). Note the recent attempts by WotC to fudge their way out of this situation by providing classes with companions that aren't truly alive. The reason for this is that to be balanced, the companion must be weak and disposable.Also note that 5E summons are only balanced if the GM specifically limits the summons. A player that gets to choose his own summons will be more (over)powerful than any beastmaster (even one that fulfils the criteria set out by this post).</blockquote>

Verification