Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7474145" data-attributes="member: 12731">Lots of talk here justifying WotC. As if we needed corporate mouthpieces in our discussion. The animal companion absolutely must have its own action. It absolutely must be survivable much like a player character. Why not simply acknowledge how playing two figures will always be inherently unbalanced? Why not design the subclass the way it needs to be designed, and then slap a sidebar onto it saying you need DM approval to play it?This is nothing different than the Wild Mage in the PHB.TLDR Any Beastmaster with a &quot;balanced&quot; pet is a useless Beastmaster. So make a class that works, and require DM opt-in so groups can choose:If balance is a primary concern, tell the player to play something else.If everyone is okay with having a pet beast that actually contributes and doesn't need to be saved all the time, then a Beastmaster it is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 7474145, member: 12731"] Lots of talk here justifying WotC. As if we needed corporate mouthpieces in our discussion. The animal companion absolutely must have its own action. It absolutely must be survivable much like a player character. Why not simply acknowledge how playing two figures will always be inherently unbalanced? Why not design the subclass the way it needs to be designed, and then slap a sidebar onto it saying you need DM approval to play it? This is nothing different than the Wild Mage in the PHB. TLDR Any Beastmaster with a "balanced" pet is a useless Beastmaster. So make a class that works, and require DM opt-in so groups can choose: If balance is a primary concern, tell the player to play something else. If everyone is okay with having a pet beast that actually contributes and doesn't need to be saved all the time, then a Beastmaster it is. [/QUOTE]

Verification