Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="OB1" data-source="post: 7479855" data-attributes="member: 6796241">Well, brutal may have been a strong word. But I do feel that overall classes and subclasses are built in a way that always leaves you wondering what could have been had you taken the other choice.  It always feels tough to me, with every class I’ve taken, because choosing one thing means not getting other cool things. As for Beastmaster, I see it doing exactly what is advertised. Instead of three small combat boosts over your career like a Hunter, you get an animal companion that has a great deal of out of combat utility, and at higher levels can provide some decent combat assistance. IMO, a well played Beast Master is superior to a Hunter, as you should be using it to set up ambushes or navigating around combats in enemy territory. It’s only when you start comparing it against other interpretations of the class that it appears to need a “fix”. With the influx of new players D&D has seen over the last few years, more and more of the player base doesn’t have that bias. In fact, many more will have experienced the class through listening to Critical Role than by other versions. Thus why WotC is no longer interested in the extreme action of revising the class. Just as XGTE though, there is room to allow more options for play styles through new spells and subclasses.</blockquote>