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: 6875951" data-attributes="member: 12731">The problem, I believe, is that a successful Beastmaster class *needs* to be overpowered to work well.The animal companion doesn't need to do huge damage, but needs to be about as sturdy as you are, and definitely as sturdy as the weakest party member.Otherwise you either a) needs to accept that it dies significantly more often than a party member, which is upsetting and unfun; or b) it is a liability that can't fight alongside it's master, and many expect the AC to be a "combat pet".Solution: clearly mark the class as spotlight-stealing (as you might expect for a build choice where you control effectively two characters), and make it clearly optional. As in writing "you cannot select this subclass without your group's and you DM's explicit approval" right into the book.Other than that, I feel the exploration focus is doomed, especially if you want the class to work without magic.Consider the party taking a Warlock with an Imp familiar along. Day ruined for the poor Ranger. The value of exploration must be kept very low. Or the exploration abilities can't be held low key and realistic.The realistic assumption on a class that is supposed to compete with the PHB gang is a competent fighter with a knack for exploration. I would have made it be the go-to choice for anyone wanting best-in-class archers and dual wielders. Or, a basic no-frills warrior but with a really cool animal friend; as in a fearsome specimen that holds its own; not compared to the relatively feeble beasts of the MM, but the other player characters!Then add a dollop of exploration on top of these two chassi, but cost those abilities essentially at zero, since they won't do anything other classes can't accomplish with magic.</blockquote>

Verification