D&D (2024) What type of ranger would your prefer for 2024?

[Emberashh]

Their BEASTS are different and have different options, but that doesn't make the SUBCLASS different.

Unless the Beast is the Subclass, which is a pretty obvious design direction.

then they would all have to start from the same baseline class abilities. Then the subclasses would be... kind of limited.

Not at all. Base abilities would cover the things all the subs would have in common, or are otherwise unrelated to a particular kind of Beast, while also driving what the Beastmaster can do on their own, independently of the Beast.

Psionic features and your game have nothing to do with the current design. In fact, Psionics have little to nothing to do with this style of class at all. It is just a way to command the beast.

We're speculating on a class that currently doesn't exist. If you want to pull on the original inspiration, Psionics are key to delivering it. Not full Psionics, mind, but a solid dip into it.

And its far more than just commanding the beast. You should read up on the original Beastmaster novels and the Movies.

 

[Minigiant]

We're speculating on a class that currently doesn't exist. If you want to pull on the original inspiration, Psionics are key to delivering it. Not full Psionics, mind, but a solid dip into it.

And its far more than just commanding the beast. You should read up on the original Beastmaster novels and the Movies.

Its the same issue as the spellless ranger.

A spellless, low to no magic Beastmaster doesn't scale now widen enough to match D&D the same way a spellless Ranger doesn't, unless you design a well supported mechanical subsystem.

Something you'd get in 0th edition to 4th edition but not 5th

 

[Emberashh]

Its the same issue as the spellless ranger.

A spellless, low to no magic Beastmaster doesn't scale now widen enough to match D&D the same way a spellless Ranger doesn't, unless you design a well supported mechanical subsystem.

Something you'd get in 0th edition to 4th edition but not 5th

So design it. God forbid we finish the game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

My point is that it was never clear cut in 5e.

Okay, I never said it was. I said it was clear cut in 4e, when Primal was devised (which it was) and that they have made it clear in One DnD (which they have). I never made any claim it was clear cut in 5e.

It only lacks subclasses if you don't imagine them.

Dragonrider
Monster tamer (talk on monstrosity companions)
Hound Master/Packmaster (a pack of beasts)
Falconer (flying beast)
Fey speaker (give your beast fey features)
Beastmorph (meld with beast into a wereform)
Chimera (mold beasts together)

You realize none of those fit the current archetype of just having a large animal like a bear fight beside you, right? Also, what sort of beast tame is going to fusion dance with their beast? That seems a bizarre thing. I mean, I guess it could work, but how is that much different that just... turning into a werebeast as a subclass, like the Beast Barbarian does? What makes a Monster Tamer different from a Beast Master? Why is a Falconer different from both of those, when flying monstrosities and flying beasts both exist? Why is a Chimera seperate, when you have a Monster Tamer? Chimera's are Monstrosities?

Let us say you have a beast master... how is a fey speaker fundamentally different? Both times you would be giving your beast features, so are you building a subclasses around improving your beast in different ways? Also, all subclasses start at level 3, so do you lose your beast companion and gain a dragon at level three, or do they transform, and if they transform, then aren't the Monster Tamer, Beast Master, Fey Speaker, and Chimera all doing the same thing, just with different lists of options?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Unless the Beast is the Subclass, which is a pretty obvious design direction.

So what do you do from levels 1 to 2 in a beast master class without a beast? Because you can't get your subclass at level 1 anymore.

Not at all. Base abilities would cover the things all the subs would have in common, or are otherwise unrelated to a particular kind of Beast, while also driving what the Beastmaster can do on their own, independently of the Beast.

Uh huh, and that would all be RATHER similar, wouldn't it? Which means that there is very little mechanical weight left for the subclasses. If the main difference between a Beast Master with a Bear and a Beast Master with a Giant Snake is that one has a bear and the other a snake, then there becomes a struggle. Sure, you could have the Bear Subclass increase the character's strength, while the snake subclass gives them poison damage... but you could also increase strength with a python, and you are going to run into this a dozen times over where you are either HYPER specific, or broad enough that you are covering 80% of the concepts with a single subclass.

We're speculating on a class that currently doesn't exist. If you want to pull on the original inspiration, Psionics are key to delivering it. Not full Psionics, mind, but a solid dip into it.

And its far more than just commanding the beast. You should read up on the original Beastmaster novels and the Movies.

But is anyone actually asking for the original inspiration and for psychic abilities that allow them to mentally dominate others, or do they just want a beast companion? It doesn't matter what the original inspiration is if no one actually WANTS that in the design.

 

[Minigiant]

You realize none of those fit the current archetype of just having a large animal like a bear fight beside you, right?

I was purpsely describing beastmaster archeypes different from the core man and bear side by side archtype.

Also, what sort of beast tame is going to fusion dance with their beast? That seems a bizarre thing. I mean, I guess it could work, but how is that much different that just... turning into a werebeast as a subclass, like the Beast Barbarian does?

What makes a Monster Tamer different from a Beast Master?

Bulletes, death dogs, and displacer beasts

Why is a Chimera seperate, when you have a Monster Tamer? Chimera's are Monstrosities?

The Chimera can have a beast wih a turtle AC, an eagles wing's, and a lion's jaws.

 

[Emberashh]

Snip because apparently Im still getting reported and punished after already being kicked out of the thread.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I was purpsely describing beastmaster archeypes different from the core man and bear side by side archtype.

And how is ignoring the primary version of the Beast Master a good thing?

Yes, Naruto is cool. No, most people who want an animal companion don't want fuse with them. Like, I've never seen this as a suggested mechanic ANYWHERE except maybe in Digimon stuff where you are fusing with spirits? But generally those are things like the Vestige of Fire spell, not you fusing with an animal companion.

Bulletes, death dogs, and displacer beasts

Bulls, Elephants, and Megadolons.

Are we just naming creatures? You could make all of those things beasts and the subclass would work identically. That isn't a difference in how they work, just a difference in the animal.

The Chimera can have a beast wih a turtle AC, an eagles wing's, and a lion's jaws.

Why not just have a chimera with a higher AC in exchange for their fire Breath? Like.... you are just describing a different type of chimera. You don't need to be limited to chimeras only being one sort of thing. They are Chimeras after all.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Forcing subclasses to level 3 was never a good idea. Some ideas should start earlier.

Saying it is a bad idea doesn't erase the reality of the situation.

I just don't think you're that terribly creative if you believe that.

Ah yes, the most effective way to get someone to agree with you is to constantly insult them! After your break their spirit with your wicked barbs and sharp tongue, then they will grovel at the feet of your brilliant ideas and agree with everything you say, for fear of further insults stripping their tender flesh from their bones.

Bears and Snakes are rather boring places to take a Beastmaster, and if anything are best left to base class fodder.

If you can't fathom the gulf in gameplay between a dragon, a flying weapon of mass destruction, and, lets say, a pack of wolves, a fast, stealthy, efficient machine of natural murder, then I can't really imagine this conversation will be productive.

In fact, I could readily predict if I left it here you'd pipe up with a response along the lines of "oh so thats two, wheres the rest", and then Id respond with all the ideas Ive had, plus some more I thought up just to emphasize the point. And then we'll go in circles with you trying your damndest to find any hole in my posts you can squeeze into to try and stay afloat in the argument.

Or we could just not play that game and you could stop trying so hard to win.

Right, first you insult the people who WANT those things from the Beastmaster (I know someone who would love to have a powerful snake companion for a concept) by regulating them to "base class fodder"

But then... subclasses are where you get your beast from? So... how are they base class fodder at all? There has to be a subclass for them. Or are you trying to have a class with multiple beasts, one from the class and the other from the subclass? Well... what do you do about the people who just want one beast?

Now, yes, I can see the difference between COMMANDING a pack of wolves versus a dragon... but what abilities do you give the beast master who commands a pack of wolves that you don't give a Beast Master who commands a single hawk? Dragons are easy, because you can just point to the Drake Warden, and they are inherently magical and intelligent enough that you can make exceptions for them.

But also... they CAN'T be uniquely powerful engines of destruction, because the Bear Subclass has to be viable too. And a flying dragon you can ride has to be weaker in some way than the bear, or you would never pick it. And people WANT that to be viable, despite you turning your nose up at them for being basic.

And I don't need to say "where is the rest" because you are mostly ignoring my points anyways. After all, you seem to be focused on "it is possible" which, as you know, I never said it was impossible to begin with. You seem to be arguing against positions I never took, and focusing on attacking those positions. I wonder if there is a word for that...

If you present people who are interested in a beast companion with a fully designed class that not only fully captures the depth of what the concept is, but also comes with some awesome and extremely thematic psionic powers, they're going to love it.

Because that concept is awesome and no amount of extremely obvious contrarianism on your part is going to change that.

Right, because extremely thematic psionic powers ALWAYS go over well with the DnD community. That is why we have that truly awesome psionic base class that WoTC designed, right? You know, the one they attempted to make three or four times? The one that clearly got an official release because there isn't any pushback against psionic classes?

Oh wait...

That class was shot down repeatedly, and the best we've ever gotten is three psionic subclasses, in non-psionic classes, because people don't want to have base line psionics in their game. It is in fact, a major division point in the community that often leads to intense debate on the existence of Psionics in the game at all.

But yeah, I'm just a contrarian who is clearly blind to the obvious universal acceptance of cool Psionic classes.

 

[Minigiant]

And how is ignoring the primary version of the Beast Master a good thing?

It's not

The core Beastmaster was assumed.

My for picks would be
Feral Spirit (the classic Beastmaster)
Pack Master (the multi companion Beastmaster)
Beastmorph (the Beastmaster who can fuse with their companion)
Fey Speaker (the beastmaster with a fey animal spirit)

Like I said earlier, if WOTC wasn't on a NO MORE CLASSES kick, this class would already be made officially.