Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gladius Legis" data-source="post: 7031629" data-attributes="member: 68748">A "better-than-the-average-bear" is already ripping a lot of other big nasty monsters to pieces. I see absolutely no meaningful distinction there.It's reinventing the wheel as relates strictly to 5e. Every other class that uses physical attacks has one way or another to bypass DR/magical permanently (i.e. finding a magic weapon, or being a Moon Druid or Monk). The Beast Conclave Ranger is currently getting screwed there, since it's the beast that's doing much of the attacking for said Ranger.And it was a terrible solution in 3e.Resistant monsters are pretty common at higher CRs. Yes, it absolutely would be a spell tax.Comparing to Blight is patently ridiculous. Creatures with DR/magical are a much more broad category than specifically plant creatures. Moreover, without a means to bypass DR/magical, you're pretty much crippled in those fights, whereas there's plenty of ways to kill plant creatures without ever having to touch Blight.No, it really is more like Hunter's Mark.You're objecting to literally ONE more subclass having the same ability as the Moon Druid or the Monk. A subclass which needs such an ability for the sake of game balance, because said subclass gets much of their offense through their pet rather than their weapon. That hardly amounts to "wasted text in the monster statblock." That's a slippery slope fallacy to the extreme.</blockquote>