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="Garresh" data-source="post: 7706817" data-attributes="member: 6836323">Given that Sneak Attack damage falls behind pure martial or ranged damage in a big way past level 9(don't have dpr handy. look it up), and this class is balanced around sneak attack scaling minus weapon damage, it seems to a degree that the Construct is part of the base class to keep it viable. However, the Construct really steps on the Beastmaster's toes. Especially for those key levels 6-9 where its actually superior to the beastmaster's pet. I don't have a proposal ready just yet, but I'm going to have a mock up ready by later tonight. What I think would tie this all together would be to lower the CR of the construct to 1, and give it scaling like the Ranger's pet, with a few big changes.1. Much lower damage scaling. No specifics yet, but let ranger retain the badass damage pet. 2. No skill bonuses/scaling. Constructs don't get skills so they can't be as good for utility as a ranger pet.3. Significantly increased durability and "tanking" potential. Essentially let their pet shoot up to Fighter-range AC and HP, and get some limited "tanking" tools like Protection style or a significantly weakened Sentinel feature.Since it lacks damage output and has much weakened features relative to a true tank, it won't step on Ranger pets or frontline fighters. But it will still provide some combat utility and can act as a decent mount as well due to size. It is my hope that such a proposal will smooth out the power curve, give this class a bit more of a reliable role as a sort of utility controller, and avoid conflicts of role wherein the Artificer steals the limelight from specialists.Barring any specifics yet, what do you guys think of this concept change for the construct?</blockquote>

Verification