Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 4889908" data-attributes="member: 12731">If the monsters never attack the spirit companion, I believe the shaman class is severely underpowered. (Otherwise the designers would not have made the SC attackable.)So if you notice your DM never targets your SC with attacks; or only targets your SC with attacks that have a real chance of being effective - or in other words, your DM is trying his hardest not to waste attacks on your spirit companion - then my suggestion is to consider retiring that character and roll up a new one of a different class.This is conceptually similar to the rogue's situation. If you play a rogue but never encounter terrain that allows you to set up sneak attacks (other than the ones you get from powers or flanking) you should know your DM is shafting you and you should probably re-roll.Yes, these cases are about player entitlement. The rules fail to provide enough support for these classes - you need the implicit support from your DM to play them effectively. It is very important to be aware of this dependency on the DM, and IMO the PHBs have a major failing in not telling you about them. It's not "entitlement" in that you should demand your DM gives you stuff you need. The proper solution is instead to ask your DM to play another character if the necessary implicit support isn't forthcoming.You can always choose another class that aren't dependent on the DM. For instance; the 3E ranger had this dependency (because the DM could always choose monsters you didn't get your bonus against). In 4E this has been fixed.For rangers, that is.</blockquote>

Verification