Unearthed Arcana Light, Dark, Underdark - November's Unearthed Arcana

Interesting stuff.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

You're right that I haven't observed this phenomenon... cause as a DM, I'd never actually run my monsters in such a stupid, illogical fashion even though the rules "allow" me to do so. Same reason why I'd ever have that group of 20 goblins each try and run past the fighter in the tunnel in order to bum rush the wizard in back.

There is something to be said for trying to run fights at least a little bit "realistically" and not always game the system. LOL.

Not only do I agree, but IMX as a DM, I've found that when I don't game the system in such artificial ways, the players tend to do the same. Kinda neat, that.

 

[Orlax]

Not only do I agree, but IMX as a DM, I've found that when I don't game the system in such artificial ways, the players tend to do the same. Kinda neat, that.

I have to agree, the dumber I play my monsters, and by that I mean playing monsters as though they don't know they are in a game system that can be gamed, the more fun my players seen to have, and the more willing they become to also not game the system. Does this mean I purposefully have my monsters make choices that are less than strategically optimal given my knowledge as the DM (knowledge those monsters wouldn't have)? Yes yes it does, and that's totally fine, the monsters aren't supposed to win.

 

[TwoSix]

OR...

The BM isn't nearly as broken as people claim, and people who have played it in actual game play haven't seen any major balance issues, and thus there's nothing to fix.

Something can be balanced and still unliked. If they design similar features that appear to be moving away from the BM ranger design, I think it's safe to say the proof is in the pudding.

 

[I'm A Banana]

OR...

The BM isn't nearly as broken as people claim, and people who have played it in actual game play haven't seen any major balance issues, and thus there's nothing to fix.

I think the BM is probably balanced.

What it isn't is satisfying to a lot of people who want to play a woodsy dude with an animal friend.

It isn't satisfying in that way in part because of the limited animal friends (no bears! no horses!), and in perhaps bigger part because of the way making your animal friend perform an action means you can't take your own action.

When compared to other mechanics that give you some sort of companion/summon/add-on, having to use your action to make your beast-friend attack seems like a really high price to pay.

The fact that your beast-friend drops quickly is just a bit of insult-to-injury there, because there's nothing like playing a character whose central idea is that they have an animal friend and then that animal friend gets killed.

That's not going to affect every player, but it's affecting enough that WotC seems to want to do something about it.

 

[Minigiant]

Something can be balanced and still unliked. If they design similar features that appear to be moving away from the BM ranger design, I think it's safe to say the proof is in the pudding.

I think it's less that the BM ranger isn't balanced as much as many don't like how it was balanced. There are many ways to do a balanced beast master, many just didn't like the option chosen.

But that's an overall issue with the ranger and the perception of it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Something can be balanced and still unliked. If they design similar features that appear to be moving away from the BM ranger design, I think it's safe to say the proof is in the pudding.

Oh, I totally get that. Most everyone has an aspect about the game, be it a class or race or whatever that they don't like that is balanced. I was more referring to those statements we keep hearing about how the BM is broken or underpowered.

Also, and this just a pedantic pet peeve, but the phrase is 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating." Common error, like when people say, "I could care less" or "irregardless"

 

[Azurewraith]

the monsters aren't supposed to win.

Maybe not at your table! but if 1in10encounters dosnt drop at least 3/4 of the party my pcs get sloppy and then wonder why that stupid thing they did got the killed/imprisoned

 

[TwoSix]

Oh, I totally get that. Most everyone has an aspect about the game, be it a class or race or whatever that they don't like that is balanced. I was more referring to those statements we keep hearing about how the BM is broken or underpowered.

Also, and this just a pedantic pet peeve, but the phrase is 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating." Common error, like when people say, "I could care less" or "irregardless"

No, I agree that concerns about BM's power level are overblown. Hunter is better overall primarily because Beastmaster doesn't scale as well with Sharpshooter. A custom spell, magic item, or a stronger companion can easily compensate for the difference with a minimum of house-ruling.

I'm not a fan of the "disposable pet" idea, so house rules to make the companion more resilient and/or easier to bring back are also something that I would want address if I chose a beastmaster.

I also like to use more modern colloquialisms just to make prescriptivists agitated. But it's a moot point if you want to keep on discussing it, or not discussing it.

 

[Orlax]

Maybe not at your table! but if 1in10encounters dosnt drop at least 3/4 of the party my pcs get sloppy and then wonder why that stupid thing they did got the killed/imprisoned

I'm not saying the PC's are supposed to win without some adversity, but outside of harmless non killing pc drops, the monsters are supposed to lose. It is a central premise that a lot of dms fail to realize, that in the end the players are supposed to succeed. As the DM it takes no effort to kill the PC's, but it takes a ton of effort to make the PC's think they might die. A lot of DMs get lost in trying to stop the players and that leads to dms displeased with the game they are running. A fully dead PC (incapable of being rescued) is a failure on the part of the DM in my book (outside of permanent character retirement requested by the player themselves).

 

[Azurewraith]

I'm not saying the PC's are supposed to win without some adversity, but outside of harmless non killing pc drops, the monsters are supposed to lose. It is a central premise that a lot of dms fail to realize, that in the end the players are supposed to succeed. As the DM it takes no effort to kill the PC's, but it takes a ton of effort to make the PC's think they might die. A lot of DMs get lost in trying to stop the players and that leads to dms displeased with the game they are running. A fully dead PC (incapable of being rescued) is a failure on the part of the DM in my book (outside of permanent character retirement requested by the player themselves).

I would only say a fully dead pc is a failure on the dms part is unless the players ask for it, our current game (im playing not DM) a player died when he threw a rock at a molten giant(Giants made from magma from WoW the dm stole them) there big bad and nasty he wanted to talk to one (bad idea) so he threw rocks at it to get its attention(even worse idea) and got well pummled into a small smooshed up mess(we where like level 2i think) in that case its fine imo but other than that i totally agree the game isnt supposed to be dm vs pcs