D&D 5E Ranger Halfling

[Todd Roybark]

You claim to have no issues with Treantmonk, but you clearly do after posting a review in a thread where someone cites a vid of his for a single point

I really don't have any issue with Treantmonk at all. If I did I would just dismiss him, and not watch the video links you share. Instead I have watched, what you have posted. Being critical of an artist's work product is not the same as being dismissive or cruel to the artist themself.
Would you not agree with that?

Mistwell, clearly you are protective of Treantmonk.
You were the person in a conversation, that brought up his video and posted a link. Out of respect for you, and your opinion I watched the video.

Again, a video you added to the conversation. Also, yet again, you seem to be miffed that people respect you enough to watch what you post, and incorporate what you shared into the conversation, but happen to not be as enamored of the video as you apparently are.

your problem is where in the video he put the discussion? OK, again, a weird issue you have with the guy and not about this topic. Go take it up with him maybe?

You test drive a car before you buy it, correct? A test drive after purchase defeats the point.
Watching 40 minutes of a 50 minute presentation only to find out the assumptions used are contrary to one's own campaign assumptions...sucks.

Having your time wasted, is unfortunate.

Mistwell, your behavior is baffling, hence the aneurism comment before.
1) You jump into a conversation with a link, thus adding it to the conversation.
2). You then are upset that some posters in the conversation, indicate they are not interested in
watching the link. (Too be fair, they were rude)
3) You then are upset when someone does post about the video you added to the conversation.
You tell them that commenting about the video, that was interjected, by you, into the
preexisting conversation, is some sort of unreasonable social gaffe.

*If you don't want people to comment on Treantmonk's videos, don't link to them.
If you are emotional disrupted by opinions contrary to his, you probably shouldn't.*

Please stop telling me to "Tell Treantmonk" my opinion. I don't follow Treantmonk.

I do, however, follow ENworld, and you brought a book to our book club, I read it, (watched it really), and then posted my thoughts to my fellow ENworlders.....why do I need to just "tell the author"?

Your behavior and response is utterly baffling.

/Shrug/ I will leave it there /Shrug/

 

[Mistwell]

I really don't have any issue with Treantmonk at all. If I did I would just dismiss him, and not watch the video links you share. Instead I have watched, what you have posted. Being critical of an artist's work product is not the same as being dismissive or cruel to the artist themself.
Would you not agree with that?

Mistwell, clearly you are protective of Treantmonk.
You were the person in a conversation, that brought up his video and posted a link. Out of respect for you, and your opinion I watched the video.

Again, a video you added to the conversation. Also, yet again, you seem to be miffed that people respect you enough to watch what you post, and incorporate what you shared into the conversation, but happen to not be as enamored of the video as you apparently are.

You test drive a car before you buy it, correct? A test drive after purchase defeats the point.
Watching 40 minutes of a 50 minute presentation only to find out the assumptions used are contrary to one's own campaign assumptions...sucks.

Having your time wasted, is unfortunate.

Mistwell, your behavior is baffling, hence the aneurism comment before.
1) You jump into a conversation with a link, thus adding it to the conversation.
2). You then are upset that some posters in the conversation, indicate they are not interested in
watching the link. (Too be fair, they were rude)
3) You then are upset when someone does post about the video you added to the conversation.
You tell them that commenting about the video, that was interjected, by you, into the
preexisting conversation, is some sort of unreasonable social gaffe.

*If you don't want people to comment on Treantmonk's videos, don't link to them.
If you are emotional disrupted by opinions contrary to his, you probably shouldn't.*

Please stop telling me to "Tell Treantmonk" my opinion. I don't follow Treantmonk.

I do, however, follow ENworld, and you brought a book to our book club, I read it, (watched it really), and then posted my thoughts to my fellow ENworlders.....why do I need to just "tell the author"?

Your behavior and response is utterly baffling.

/Shrug/ I will leave it there /Shrug/

Why would critiquing things like video formatting and where in a video he puts things, be something you'd want to communicate to me? What does that have to do with anything anyone is talking about? What impact are you intending to have with that conversation, with me? Are you expecting me to communicate it for you to Treantmonk, or are you arguing that video formatting issues indicate Treantmonk might be incorrect about a maths issues with beastmaster pets? If so, what on earth do you imagine is the connection between those two topics?

It's not that I don't appreciate you watching the video I linked to, or that I don't want you commenting on it. But, I posted it for a single issue (his analysis of various beasts available for a ranger beast master), and only that issue. It's like you're complaining that you don't like the clothing he is wearing in that video and then upset that I point out that's not relevant to the point being made. When pressed about why you thought issues like what clothing he's wearing in the video would be relevant, you threw a fit and I guess made a "If I don't like his clothing then I don't like the video which means I don't like his analysis about this topic" type argument? It's not logical. Why would anyone care about the video formatting and where in a video he talks about something, FOR THIS CONVERSATION?

 

[Todd Roybark]

The critique isn't meant for you specifically Mistwell.
The TL;DR of the video is: The Giant Poisonous Snake is the Best Animal Companion

Did reading the above sentence take someone 50 minutes?

My critique is aimed towards those who have not already sunk an hour into watching the video.
You don't have to watch the video. You can actually just check out the books and compare all the animal entries and reach the same conclusion...much, much faster.
You can read a reddit thread, probably faster.

 

[Asisreo]

He explains where it comes from, and it's from the official interpretation of the rules as posted by Jeremy Crawford, and he directly addresses the issue you raised talking about how different DMs might look at it. He took the official ruling, which for a video like that seems the right choice. If your problem is where in the video he put the discussion? OK, again, a weird issue you have with the guy and not about this topic. Go take it up with him maybe?

Huh. Is that really the intent? It seems like my beastmaster Ranger was actually less powerful than they could be by RAI and, I guess, RAW. Good to know for future reference. I would've thought "damage rolls" was just one combined roll with separate damage types.

 

[Mistwell]

Huh. Is that really the intent? It seems like my beastmaster Ranger was actually less powerful than they could be by RAI and, I guess, RAW. Good to know for future reference. I would've thought "damage rolls" was just one combined roll with separate damage types.

It had to do with a saving throw being involved, and crits. If a save is involved, it's resolved as separate damage and does not double for crits, but does have any damage bonus to separate damage applied.

 

[Bacon Bits]

The intent, as indicated by interviews, it that Beastmasters are not confined to Monster Manual beasts. They where deliberately designed weak to allow for stronger beasts to be added by the DM.

This... seems like a very questionable design decision. It's like only putting daggers and leather armor in the equipment section because "DMs will surely add more powerful weapons and armor." It only makes sense if you think it's too powerful even after lowballing it.

I would have much preferred an animal companion that used one of 2-3 sets of stats that were balanced for actual play and then let the companion take whatever form the PC wanted.

 

[Asisreo]

This... seems like a very questionable design decision. It's like only putting daggers and leather armor in the equipment section because "DMs will surely add more powerful weapons and armor." It only makes sense if you think it's too powerful even after lowballing it.

I would have much preferred an animal companion that used one of 2-3 sets of stats that were balanced for actual play and then let the companion take whatever form the PC wanted.

It's also important to remember that any beast eligible for a Ranger's companion can also be eligible for a druid's wildshape.

Which is a bit interesting.

 

[Bacon Bits]

It's also important to remember that any beast eligible for a Ranger's companion can also be eligible for a druid's wildshape.

Which is a bit interesting.

Or, you know, Conjure Animals, which lets you create up to 8 beasts for up to an hour, and that take verbal commands to act which require no action from you. Oh, and of course an animal companion is lost entirely when it dies and you have to find another actual beast and commune with it for 8 hours to get a replacement. They don't do that with Find Familiar or Find Steed, of course.

 

[Flamestrike]

So if an Ranger used a Animal Companion as a mount since there a halfling, could they verbally command it to take the help action while riding it, since they are in control of it regardless? Sorry if this sounds like rules lawyering.

You have two options with an intelligent Mount - controlled (in which case it simply grants you its movement speed, and can Dash Disengage or Dodge), or uncontrolled.

You would use your Animal Companion as one or the other (your choice). If Uncontrolled, it acts as a normal animal companion with those rules taking precedent (depending on which version you use).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That's a false inference. You had my opinion,

No. You did not say "this is my opinion". You said (exact words): "Wolf is not the best option for an animal companion. Giant Poisonous Snake is the best. "

That is not expressing an opinion. That is stating something as a fact.

It's not even your own opinion.

I also don't have 50 minutes to sit and watch a video. If someone has something relevant to say they can write it down. Video is the media of the illiterate.

Well obviously I was not accounting for house ruled companions.

It is not a house rule that the DM creates creature stat blocks, That is a basic assumption of the game, and was assumed when the Beastmaster class was designed (as stated in interviews).