NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GlassJaw" data-source="post: 7478107" data-attributes="member: 22103">So this thread has meandered quite a bit although I've tried to follow most of it.I do find the last few pages quite interesting actually, as it's getting to the core of what people envision the Beastmaster should be conceptually. And there is an interesting dilemma with regards to concept versus design.This is a generalization but the two main concepts seem to be:a) The beast is a loyal and faithful companion that is protected by the ranger. The companion is essentially another member of the party.b) The beast is a weapon that the ranger directs. It is expendable and can be replaced. In this case, the companion is essentially a Pokemon (like the paladin's pokemount from 3ed).I would argue that the most people probably envision "a" when they think Beastmaster. This is the iconic grizzled warrior striding through the forest with his wolf/tiger/hound/velociraptor at his side. There are many instances of this relationship between man and beast throughout literature.That said, it also poses quite possibly the most difficult design challenge to solve with regards to game mechanics in which the goal is for each character to have a completely unique role but also be "balanced" against each other. As soon as you introduce additional actions, health, etc to a character, the balance gets skewed very quickly. For homework, look up a mathematician named Lanchester if you want to see some of the math behind why. To compensate, the designers did what many consider to be an effective "neutering" of the subclass (no pun intended): require the player's action to direct the companion.The other option - expendable minions that can be replaced - is much easier to solve. The companion can easily be balanced with a number of uses per rest or a mechanic like the Conjure Animal spells. This isn't without precedent either. This Beastmaster essentially emulates Aquaman in a sense.However, this option completely removes the attachment to the animal companion, and my guess is that a large percentage of the player base would have rallied against this since the mechanic completely undermines the iconic "man's best friend" relationship (I don't recall if the Beastmaster ever got this type of design during the Next playtest).As a designer myself, I would have been ok with the expendable/uses per day option. I understand the design challenges and given the purveyance of magic in 5E, I wouldn't be phased by a "summoning" narrative to explain the mechanic. At the same time, I completely understand the want for a class in which the animal companion is the primary driver of the class, and one that goes beyond mechanics. I also understand that "summoning" the companion may break that emotional connection to the companion for a lot of players.Anyway, I find it a really interesting discussion, mainly because the narrative behind the class and the mechanics are completely intertwined and greatly affect each other.</blockquote>

Verification