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="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7487812" data-attributes="member: 6801228">My fault for not being clear. If an enemy wants to close on an opponent who is attacking with reach, they only need to move 5ft. And you are right, the enemy might be next to another opponent and be unable to follow the snake. but moving in an out of combat means that with that 30 ft, they are only able to stick 20 ft away (15 ft move, 5 ft reach) that is still in the danger zone of melee combat. And if you end up in a bad position because you used too much movement, the enemy can simply circle your more dangerous PC, and be in reach of the snake. It is a good strategy, but it isn’t a strategy without weaknesses, and it shouldn’t be the only strategy that is viable for Beastmasters, they should have more viable strategies than that one. So there is no precedent for an Archer with a Hawk or Owl companion? No concept of tag-teaming by covering both far range and melee. Hell, hunting dogs were trained to chase down prey while people with guns or bows went for the kill shot. But sure, your PHB says that if you want a beast companion you must be a melee character. Just be aware, no one else feels that Rangers should be limited that much. And to turn to this point, are you now insisting that “trained to fight alongside you” literally means right next to you. Thought that discussion was had and you were on the other side of that fence. And why is it smart to design it that way, but nowhere state it as a fact? Nothing prevents it in the current beastmaster. YOU are the one stating that beastmaster’s can’t be archers, beasts have always been melee options, we just want them to be decent at it to make an entire subclass and theme work as intended Can you point to me where it says fighters lose access to bows when they decide to wield a sword? Do mages forget all ranged spells if they take Shocking Grasp or Vampiric Touch? There is no “You must pick melee or ranged, you cannot do both”. If you want to give us beasts that have ranged attacks, then go ahead. But, you are the only one who somehow thinks there must be this one or the other design. We have no choice about Beasts in melee, there isn’t some other beast we can get, so yes, we want them to survive melee, since that is the only place they can be in combat. Heck, I can even prove “Reach” is a melee option, know how? Every single Reach weapon in the game is a melee weapon. There are no weapons with the Reach property listed as ranged weapons. Because that makes no sense, the Reach property just allows people to attack in melee while not immediately next to an enemy. And let us not forget, we’ve already covered how the beast’s utility is far below that of the Find Familiar spell, a first level ritual that only costs the user gold, and not even that much gold. So, unless you can prove that Familiar’s are not better utility options in every way than an Animal Companion, they are a combat option. As a combat option, they only have melee attacks (even if one option can attack at reach) and so should they not be able to survive melee?Show me a single beast that can attack an enemy from further than 30 ft away. One. Not a fly-by attack that allows them to leave melee range after their attack. Not a reach of 10 ft which only puts them one step away from the enemy (and therefore still in melee). Show me a single animal companion option that can attack from 30 ft away by RAW. Then I will agree that we are insisting companions be in melee instead of it being the rules insisting on it. It is implied that animals need proficiency in Barding, because warhorses are specifically called out as being able to wear barding.</blockquote>

Verification