Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 7827227" data-attributes="member: 20564">I agree with your logic about a beastmaster can't be less than a normal character plus a purchased pet. But a purchased pet, once you hit 5th levels, is like 10% or less of a normal character. And that gets less and less as you level.So I wouldn't see the balance point at 1.5, I'd see it at 1.1. Near enough the other classes that it's still on the same curve, just in the front side of it.I don't like the action economy stuff, and how the PHB Beastmaster is done is quite bad even after the errata. But from a gamist perspective, I can see having a characte that is viable on their own but gives up some of during play to make their beast more viable so that together they don't overwhelm the other classes would be one workable design. Now, that starts with viable so giving up your action to have it attack isn't on the table, and there are likely ways outside action economy that fit the narrative better - I'm open for that.Just to brainstorm, what about a ranger that starts with the idea of character + purchased pet? In other words, a ranger who doesn't get a pet but enhances what they have. It wouldn't even need to be a subclass - we already have Hunter's Mark as what should be a feature that they reused the spell mechanics for, we could do the same. Several until-end-of-long-rest spells that can buff a pet, which upcast to keep the pet on level, and some bonus action spells that could be used during combat. So a ranger keeps all of their martial goodness, trading the majority of their casting for a pet. And if there is no pet for whatever reason, they have their casting back (starting the next day).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blue, post: 7827227, member: 20564"] I agree with your logic about a beastmaster can't be less than a normal character plus a purchased pet. But a purchased pet, once you hit 5th levels, is like 10% or less of a normal character. And that gets less and less as you level. So I wouldn't see the balance point at 1.5, I'd see it at 1.1. Near enough the other classes that it's still on the same curve, just in the front side of it. I don't like the action economy stuff, and how the PHB Beastmaster is done is quite bad even after the errata. But from a gamist perspective, I can see having a characte that is viable on their own but gives up some of during play to make their beast more viable so that together they don't overwhelm the other classes would be [B]one[/B] workable design. Now, that starts with viable so giving up your action to have it attack isn't on the table, and there are likely ways outside action economy that fit the narrative better - I'm open for that. Just to brainstorm, what about a ranger that starts with the idea of character + purchased pet? In other words, a ranger who doesn't get a pet but enhances what they have. It wouldn't even need to be a subclass - we already have Hunter's Mark as what should be a feature that they reused the spell mechanics for, we could do the same. Several until-end-of-long-rest spells that can buff a pet, which upcast to keep the pet on level, and some bonus action spells that could be used during combat. So a ranger keeps all of their martial goodness, trading the majority of their casting for a pet. And if there is no pet for whatever reason, they have their casting back (starting the next day). [/QUOTE]

Verification