Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="castlewise" data-source="post: 7767669" data-attributes="member: 6669618">I don't think this really qualifies as a fix to the Beastmaster since you are, power wise, playing 2 PC's.&nbsp; One of the main challenges with the Beast Master is you have one PC's worth of power spread across two bodies so they each feel a little weak.&nbsp; Getting to play a full Ranger with a Warrior beast sidekick would definitely feel more powerful.&nbsp; But so would playing a Paladin with a Spellcaster squire that follows you around or a Warlock with an Expert familiar to pick all your locks.&nbsp; One thing I would like to see is some sort of statement saying that sidekicks take a full share of XP.&nbsp; If players want more than one PC (and they very well might) then that should be the main cost.&nbsp; Sidekicks are interesting because they aren't quite player options but they aren't just DM options either.&nbsp; I think the UA does a disservice by calling them sidekicks because it makes them sound like something a player could just get, when they aren't really designed that way.&nbsp; They are bare bones versions of PC characters classes.&nbsp; I really like them and think they fill a gap in the DM toolkit, but the whole sidekick name is saddling them with a lot of baggage.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="castlewise, post: 7767669, member: 6669618"] I don't think this really qualifies as a fix to the Beastmaster since you are, power wise, playing 2 PC's. One of the main challenges with the Beast Master is you have one PC's worth of power spread across two bodies so they each feel a little weak. Getting to play a full Ranger with a Warrior beast sidekick would definitely feel more powerful. But so would playing a Paladin with a Spellcaster squire that follows you around or a Warlock with an Expert familiar to pick all your locks. One thing I would like to see is some sort of statement saying that sidekicks take a full share of XP. If players want more than one PC (and they very well might) then that should be the main cost. Sidekicks are interesting because they aren't quite player options but they aren't just DM options either. I think the UA does a disservice by calling them sidekicks because it makes them sound like something a player could just get, when they aren't really designed that way. They are bare bones versions of PC characters classes. I really like them and think they fill a gap in the DM toolkit, but the whole sidekick name is saddling them with a lot of baggage. [/QUOTE]

Verification