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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7765378" data-attributes="member: 6919838">"The real issue is that everyone looks at the Beastmaster and think of what it "should" be (a character with a combat pet) instead of looking at what it actually is (a character with an exploration pet who also has some limited combat support capabilities), and just try to play along with that, or play something else."Actually, I wont try to speak for everyone and will leave that to folks like you, but for me, my complaints are about what it is. The rule that the creature cannot attack, will not attack, without orders of the ranger is not out of commission **except** for OA makes zero sense on multiple levels. That's a fail to me. It isnt stopping the beast from doing damage without order just requiring a very convoluted setup. It also breaks the usual mechanic for NPCs - GM control unless PC spends action.Now, weighing what it **is** vs other sub-classes - just the PHB hunter - thru 7th level it doesn't match up to the basic everyday every round extra d8 and disad to OA. I **agree** its strength could have been as scout/explore option, but it fails that too. There is zero support for that really built into the sub-class. Is there any communication provided beyond you giving it orders - mo speak with animals, no telepathy see thru eyes, not even a ritual cast option for those spells. Forcing you to spend spells for making this thing be able to communicate back what it found is not getting you much more than what the spells and animal handling would get you otherwise. Also they give it boosted HP and specify its trained to "fight alongside you" but no such gains to its intelligence or communication or scouting... so if we are to be "looking at what it actually is" and we are supposed to be seeing "an exploration pet" - I am not sure those two actually fit what was presented.Finally, accepting that it can get killed is fine as is accepting that it will need replacing but the actual replacement does not include summoning - just bonding with a beast you have there and not hostile. That creates a long period of downtime for the ability - which is fine if its potent enough to balance that out - and a serious lack of control over what form the next one takes. For a lot of common adventure structure that can turn into "no sub-class" in effect for an overly long period without much power to show for it.I am *not* someone who wants ranger+beast to be on par with playing two PCs but I do want it on par with other sub-classes and consistent with typical NPC rules. This could have been managed a number of different ways - just borrow the "pick one type of three" options for beast support like they did for hunter and scale up a series of "stuff beasts do for you" features without having to name specific singular started beasts. Let it be "using the local fauna as your ally" more than a named pet.Then the names pet could remain a feature of training, awakening spells, etc. But long story long, what you suggest we should be looking at it as being does not match what they have it able to do as supported by that sub-class features.</blockquote>

Verification