D&D 5E It is OK for a class to be the worst

[Guest 6801328]

But it doesn't and I don't think this has any impact on the viability of the class as written. My read and experience with actually playing the class is that getting attached to the animal companion is not skillful play. It will likely die at some point, just like the character might die at some point. Unless the DM takes death off the table, this is a reality the players have to deal with. Skillful players plan accordingly. I, for example, purposefully switch up animal companions based on their utility in the given adventure.

DMs are welcome to change the class on their own, of course, if they have players that want animal companions like whatever Pokemon game you're referencing. This does not indicate to me a problem with the class, just a preference of certain players.

Agreed.

I can understand that Beastmaster isn't what a lot of players wanted, but that's not the same as underpowered. (It may also be underpowered, but these are two separate questions.)

I'll add that I also find the "spirit" version of both Beastmaster pets and Wizard familiars dissatisfying from a flavor standpoint. But I understand why they did it. 5e is designed so that PCs are highly resilient. For example, level draining is gone, and where there is some kind of draining (e.g. Shadows) it's very easy to get it back. There's basically no permanent, or even quasi-permanent, injury.

If the ranger's pet is both a vital part of his/her effectiveness and it's a living beast into which the ranger has invested something, then having that beast die in combat is a pretty serious setback. If you're deep in a dungeon when it happens, when is your next chance to find, tame, and train a new one?

And the answer, "Well, that's what skillful play is all about" ignores that such an attitude goes against the design philosophy of 5e.

So, again, I fully understand the sentiment, and to a large extent agree with it. And it's just not compatible with 5e.

 

[iserith]

Agreed.

I can understand that Beastmaster isn't what a lot of players wanted, but that's not the same as underpowered. (It may also be underpowered, but these are two separate questions.)

I'll add that I also find the "spirit" version of both Beastmaster pets and Wizard familiars dissatisfying from a flavor standpoint. But I understand why they did it. 5e is designed so that PCs are highly resilient. For example, level draining is gone, and where there is some kind of draining (e.g. Shadows) it's very easy to get it back. There's basically no permanent, or even quasi-permanent, injury.

If the ranger's pet is both a vital part of his/her effectiveness and it's a living beast into which the ranger has invested something, then having that beast die in combat is a pretty serious setback. If you're deep in a dungeon when it happens, when is your next chance to find, tame, and train a new one?

And the answer, "Well, that's what skillful play is all about" ignores that such an attitude goes against the design philosophy of 5e.

So, again, I fully understand the sentiment, and to a large extent agree with it. And it's just not compatible with 5e.

I think that ignores the fact that characters can and do die. Is that compatible with D&D 5e? Setbacks like this are just part of adventuring life. Overcoming them is part of the game and helps contribute to exciting, memorable stories.

I would also add that when I play a beast master, I have to really work to get the animal companion killed. That is anecdotal obviously, but I don't see a lot of DMs wasting their NPC/monster's good attacks and abilities on my boar or donkey. The only thing I have to watch out for is AoE's which is just about positioning and that's generally easy enough. And if I can't, then oh well, I go get another animal companion.

 

[Asisreo]

I think that ignores the fact that characters can and do die. Is that compatible with D&D 5e? Setbacks like this are just part of adventuring life. Overcoming them is part of the game and helps contribute to exciting, memorable stories.

I would also add that when I play a beast master, I have to really work to get the animal companion killed. That is anecdotal obviously, but I don't see a lot of DMs wasting their NPC/monster's good attacks and abilities on my boar or donkey. The only thing I have to watch out for is AoE's which is just about positioning and that's generally easy enough. And if I can't, then oh well, I go get another animal companion.

Agreed. It's pretty hard to just have a companion die if it isn't being specifically targeted. At 3rd level, certain beasts might have more HP than a player. I'd imagine a Giant Frog would have more HP than the wizard does.

 

[LordEntrails]

Because it sucks to be the worse at the table and feeling like your inconsequential.

Doesn't this say more about the player than the class? After all, if you rank things, then something has to be at the bottom. And if a player is going to feel inconsequential because they are not 'the best' at the table then you are ranking the value of the players themselves. Not a table I want to play at.

 

[Weiley31]

Araki: Well no, but yes.

 

[iserith]

Agreed. It's pretty hard to just have a companion die if it isn't being specifically targeted. At 3rd level, certain beasts might have more HP than a player. I'd imagine a Giant Frog would have more HP than the wizard does.

I'm fairly convinced that the objection to beast master is just white room theorizing and has very little to do with actual play experience. I've got a lot of hours under multiple DMs as a PHB and UA beast master, chiefly because I wanted to see if all the complaining in early D&D 5e was justified. It was all just fine and arguably one of the more memorable characters in any of those games. Red Creek Rufus throwing a net on an enemy and his boar, Belvedere, rushing in out of nowhere to gore and knock the enemy prone so the rest of the party can kick it to death is just good wholesome fun.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think that ignores the fact that characters can and do die. Is that compatible with D&D 5e? Setbacks like this are just part of adventuring life. Overcoming them is part of the game and helps contribute to exciting, memorable stories.

I would also add that when I play a beast master, I have to really work to get the animal companion killed. That is anecdotal obviously, but I don't see a lot of DMs wasting their NPC/monster's good attacks and abilities on my boar or donkey. The only thing I have to watch out for is AoE's which is just about positioning and that's generally easy enough. And if I can't, then oh well, I go get another animal companion.

I agree with you; I prefer something grittier and higher stakes. I'm just explaining why I think WotC didn't, and wouldn't, do it that way. True, PCs can die, but there are a bunch of safety mechanisms to prevent it. Even if you gave pets death saves, with relatively low HP, and damage output becoming greater and greater, it becomes increasingly likely they'd be insta-killed. (And, to be honest, my logic here was based mostly on having through through this same issue with familiars, which typically only have 1 HP, and have good reasons for being targeted by NPCs.)

 

[Asisreo]

I'm fairly convinced that the objection to beast master is just white room theorizing and has very little to do with actual play experience. I've got a lot of hours under multiple DMs as a PHB and UA beast master, chiefly because I wanted to see if all the complaining in early D&D 5e was justified. It was all just fine and arguably one of the more memorable characters in any of those games. Red Creek Rufus throwing a net on an enemy and his boar, Belvedere, rushing in out of nowhere to gore and knock the enemy prone so the rest of the party can kick it to death is just good wholesome fun.

It's upsetting but it makes sense. People don't usually get to play all of their pre-built characters so they'll make them using theorycrafting and blog recommendations. They then choose their favorite one if they start a new campaign or their old character dies. The strength of the "weaker" subclasses aren't obvious, so they write them off as weak and never actually play them.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yeah the Beserker is just a poor design because the Exhaustion mechanic is just too shallow to be worth hanging anything on it.

Yeah I was trying to explain this to one of the other players, who is normally good at min-maxing, but looked at Frenzy and was like "Wow that's amazing, I should definitely go Berserker!", and it's like, dude, even 1 Exhaustion will make you bad at all the stuff you do (he loves to grapple and to do all sorts of crazy stunts which require athletics checks and so on), 2 Exhaustion will basically you having to be dragged by the party, and useless in most combat, and 3 Exhaustion will make you almost entirely ineffective. He's like "But I can get rid of it, right?" and I'm like "No. There isn't any way short of a long rest.", but I think he just doesn't think I've looked hard enough.

 

[iserith]

I agree with you; I prefer something grittier and higher stakes. I'm just explaining why I think WotC didn't, and wouldn't, do it that way. True, PCs can die, but there are a bunch of safety mechanisms to prevent it. Even if you gave pets death saves, with relatively low HP, and damage output becoming greater and greater, it becomes increasingly likely they'd be insta-killed. (And, to be honest, my logic here was based mostly on having through through this same issue with familiars, which typically only have 1 HP, and have good reasons for being targeted by NPCs.)

Yeah, I just alter my tactics accordingly. Same with familiars. If the enemy has reliable ranged attacks such that my owl can get iced, then I'm putting the owl away for now or at least moving it into total cover after the flyby. If I care about my animal companion getting killed (and I might actually want them to get killed sometimes), then I'm going to be judicious in their use, given what we're facing.