D&D 5E UA interviews: The possible future for Pet Subclasses in 5e.

[Parmandur]

That's not true. You can be more satisfying, then you can be great, then you can blow expecations out of the water.

Your reductionist thinking is pretty widespread in RPGs and only in RPGs. In Video Games and boardgames and card games, producers always try to exceed expectations and go the extra mile. In RPGs, this is rarely the case.

Their standard is 70% satisfaction (which Crawford has spoken to frequently), that's a pretty high mark. They are aiming high, but their benchmark is satisfaction. They literally don't care about anything else other than not breaking the math.

 

[Shardstone]

Their standard is 70% satisfaction (which Crawford has spoken to frequently), that's a pretty high mark. They are aiming high, but their benchmark is satisfaction. They literally don't care about anything else other than not breaking the math.

You're completely missing my point.

I know their benchmark.

I know what they do and do not care about.

I'm saying they should go further and push higher. That was the whole point of my mini-essay above, which seems to have been reduced to something it isn't.

I am telling you, directly, that satisfaction is not good enough in my eyes for a multi-million dollar company, and that I believe that they are capable of doing way more then they are now, and that they should actively be trying to do so.

 

[Parmandur]

You're completely missing my point.

I know their benchmark.

I know what they do and do not care about.

I'm saying they should go further and push higher. That was the whole point of my mini-essay above, which seems to have been reduced to something it isn't.

I am telling you, directly, that satisfaction is not good enough in my eyes for a multi-million dollar company, and that I believe that they are capable of doing way more then they are now, and that they should actively be trying to do so.

I think maybe you have a different understanding of the word "satisfaction" from myself or WotC: how is pushing to delight their players and make them happy not the point of game publishing?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It was a long time since I looked at the revised Beastmaster, but sure, show me the official version (with those 1st level kinks ironed out) and we'll talk.

As long as it remains playtest, however, WotC has fixed nothing.

One man's garbage...

The game already has plenty ways to bring creatures back from the dead. You need to understand that by making it significantly easier/cheaper/faster to resurrect one creature than others, what that REALLY means, is that creature's life isn't worth as much; that the rule is trying to lessen the impact of that particular creature dying.

But animal lovers looking to play a Beastmaster isn't interested in having their pet die.

And they are definitely not interested in any mechanism for replacing it. If there ever was a design that fundamentally misunderstands the needs and wants of the Beastmaster fans, it is the notion Fido 2 and Fido 3 works just as well as Fido 1.

The fact that you insist on continuing to imply that anyone that wants a specific mechanism for regaining the pet when it dies, isn’t a pet lover, is both dishonest, overwrought (we are talking a game, not my actual dog who is sleeping with head on my lap right now), and insulting. Knock it the hell off. Grow up.

The fact that you keep responding to me as if I’m talking about replacing the pet when I have exclusively talked about regaining the pet, tells me that you’re just skimming people’s post in order to be argumentative.

And I don’t care about your grudge against wotc.

As for the revised ranger, I never said wotc had fixed the ranger already. Stop replying to people as if they’d said crap they didn’t say. It’s both rude, and makes you look like you aren’t paying attention.

What I said, repeating myself for hopefully the last time, is that they have accomplished the goal of a balanced pet that doesn’t die frequently. The revised beast master ranger, in total, is not more powerful than other PHB classes, and it has a pet that won’t die any more often than most PCs. Your claim that it can’t be done is objectively false. It has been proven false.

It also has a mechanism for bringing the pet back, because most BM players are going to want to know that they can bring their pet back, and thus feel comfortable bringing it into danger in the first place. I’d never let my dog anywhere near a fight IRL, bc I have no way to magically heal him, and if he dies that’s it. Part of playing a BM Ranger is playing the fantasy of my pet never being permanently gone. OTOH, asking the player to sacrifice the components and demand the service of another PC in order to regain their entire subclass, is just bonkers-level bad design.

Having the mechanism for resurrection in the hands of the ranger does not imply anything of the sort that you claim it does. It literally just means that the ranger in a group with no cleric or Druid can still keep their subclass after it gets hit by a maxed out lighting bolt partway through a tough fight. Just like could happen to the rogue or the wizard. The wolf has better armor than a normal wolf, rogue level HP, and proficiency on all saves. It isn’t equal to a PC, or even half a PC, or whatever, but it keeps up in terms of durability, and it contributes damage that brings the BM on par with other damage focused characters.

 

[lkj]

I mean, they've accepted and acknowledged that won't work.

The PHB Beastmaster is working as designed. It isn't what you want, or a good number of other people, but WotC has found most people are satisfied with it. Enough are dissatisfied to create a conundrum. In a similar situation, with the Monk of the Four Elements, they found that introducing the Soul Sun made enough the folks displeased with the Four Elements get what they wanted that the "problem" was fixed, straight up. They will not "fix" the Beastmaster, certainly not by making the Subclass imbalanced. But introducing a new Subclass similar to the Battle Smith or this Druid will probably do the trick of channeling enough of those dissatisfied into an option they would prefer.

YMMV.

I do wonder how the oft hinted at 'alternative class features' might play into the design. It's been long enough that it's possible they've abandoned this path entirely (in favor of just adding new subclasses). But if not, such features could have interesting and perhaps very useful interactions with subclasses like the Beastmaster.

AD

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Players could use a special link ritual for animal companions, to heal theses with their own lifeforce. This could avoid abuses by munchkins.

* Some DMs use as bosses characters with class levels. Can you imagine a goblin with a monster mount as boss?

The kercpas were canon in AD&D 2nd, and April's fool in 4th.

Xerxes the eel was the familiar by Mozenrath, one of the main antagonists of Disney's Aladine cartoon teleserie.

Also I remember a old (and sadly forgotten) Hanna-Barbera cartoon, Jana of the Jungle, with TWO animal companions.

* I am still imagining Hasbro CEOs asking a pet subclass to sell actions figures with monster allies.

 

[CapnZapp]

So, here's the thing.

On one hand, you're right. What they're doing is enough to satisfy people. And that's what matters for a business is that you can satisfy people enough to make your money and keep it moving.

But that doesn't mean things can't be better.And just because people are satisfied with this doesn't mean things can't be improved more. Sure, WotC can stagnate and leave things as they are, because that'll exceed their bottom line and allow them keep a pleased audience. But I don't think any artistic or business endeavor--and RPGs are both--should stop at being just satisfying.

Four Elements could have been done a lot better. Beastmaster could have been done a lot better. The fixes right now are good enough, but they aren't the best, and we should not say that because they are satisfying that the problem is solved and we can all move on. That's not how we get better content. That's not how we get better games.

Yes, it is really tiresome to hear WotC stooges parrot "but they're making money; so that means we don't get to ask for better products" as if "but somebody likes it" is a relevant argument against criticizing the design.

 

[CapnZapp]

Ah just give the BM ranger a bag of holding. Stuff Fido in there when you are going to fight the ancient red dragon. It doesn't matter how many hit points he has, he isn't going to contribute anything to the fight. When it is time to fight goblins or zombies again, let him out again.

Yeah.

In other news, it would be wonderful to have an official subclass for us fans of the WoW Hunter - where Fido runs into melee against the Dragon, doesn't do spectacular damage but holds his own (possibly supplanted by my support magic), while I rain arrows/bullets down from afar.

Only snag is: Fido is obviously a relevant level 17 bruiser (simply but not fragile) while I remain a relevant level 17 Ranger (though not spectacular, as I'm sure other Ranger subclasses are).

So this subclass should already from the get-go be labeled "advanced": only for those groups that understand that just because Fido and me together technically is greater than one character doesn't mean I can or will steal their spotlight: we don't overshadow the Fighter at fighting or the Cleric or Wizard at spellcasting, and Fido certainly is no wildshaped Druid.

All the "overpoweredness" does is ensure my character schtick works in practical play - that is, Fido isn't the weakest link, the pet isn't a liability, I can use it as intended without worrying overly much. (Fido still can't withstand the same amount of abuse as the heavily armored Fighter or the raging Barbarian, but certainly has the hit points to function as a melee bruiser, especially given any Ranger magic that lets me transfer my own hit points to the pet, or straight-up heal it).

 

[CapnZapp]

What I said, repeating myself for hopefully the last time, is that they have accomplished the goal of a balanced pet that doesn’t die frequently. The revised beast master ranger, in total, is not more powerful than other PHB classes, and it has a pet that won’t die any more often than most PCs. Your claim that it can’t be done is objectively false. It has been proven false.

Until the revised Beastmaster is further polished and officially published, all it serves is allowing apologists like you to claim they're done when they're clearly not.

If you think my language is harsh, it's only because you say things like "Knock it the hell off. Grow up."

Let me assure you I am grown up. I know what I am talking about. The only thing that is false here is you claiming they have accomplished the goal of a balanced pet that doesn’t die frequently. You don't get to tell me when I should be satisfied.

They have accomplished diddly squat. The closest thing we have in actual, officially published fact, is Crawford's insulting belittling tweet about "buy a guard dog or something".

Read the post I just wrote about how wonderful it would be to see official support for a WoW-style Hunter, and then think before you write that I should be satisfied. You and I are done.

 

[CapnZapp]

Players could use a special link ritual for animal companions, to heal theses with their own lifeforce.

Yep.

This was even a perfectly ordinary spell in 3E - if the target got 2 damage, it loses 1 hp and you lose 1 hp. Voilà - the pet has twice as many hit points (and is that much safer from a stray Fireball or whatever)

Shield Other :: d20srd.org

www.d20srd.org