Not making it the only thing the class does is not the same thing as ignoring it.
So where is it in your proposal? Not providing the option is.... ignoring it.
I am answering you Chaos drop the hysterics.
Pointing out that you are just layering insults upon me isn't hysterics. Calling my calling you out "hysterics" instead of addressing the all the options I presented before is... still insulting me.
1) Every beastmaster ranger I've had wanted a close connection with a single beast.
2) Trinket is a known character
3) In this link (
Beastmaster Ranger - Google Search) , there are pictures. Within the first 37 results, all but 3 present a single beast companion. That is 92%. If I add another 36 results for a total of 73 images, that percentage is only dropping to 89%. There are actually MORE images in that set without any beasts at all, than there are of multiple beasts.
Seriously, unless you want a peer-reviewed research paper done by an accredited third-party, this can't get any more obvious.
I think you just don't like being contradicted and would rather make appeals to a phantom playerbase you don't actually speak for than admit some of us that you're getting into arguments with have valid points to make, points just as valid as yours, mind you.
More pointless insults. So exciting.
Lets let those people speak for themselves.
Who says they aren't? Just because there are only four people in this thread willing to engage with you doesn't mean that everyone ignoring you agrees with you.
Balance isn't a zero sum, and Classes shouldn't be balanced based on PVP as you're apparently trying to do.
I'm not trying to describe PVP at all. Where would you even get that idea? Comparing two player options side by side doesn't mean they are engaging in PVP! And, while balance isn't zero sum, having one thing doing way more than another... isn't balanced.
The Dragon and the Bear (as I described it) present very divergent playstyles, and that is where the balance lies, alongside simply following through on the concept to its fullest extent.
And "as you described it" was a reflfuffed wolf-pack, not as what people generally want, nor what I meant when I provided the example. Yeah, one monster versus many is very divergent, but that wasn't what I was talking about.
If the Bear subclass is at its peak, and by that I mean as fully awesome and fully captive to the idea of the subclass, taken all the way to its logical conclusion after 20/30 levels of play, without being deliberately broken (relative to the game in question), and the same can be said about all other options, then there is no issue or disparity. Anyone who complains at that point isn't someone any game designer needs pay any attention to.
If the bear subclass is at its peak, then there is no issue or disparity? Why? How? Just because you say so? You couched it in three or four mitigating statements, but you literally said nothing except "at its best there isn't disparity". Well, what about at its worst?
And as for Flight, the principle probablem vis a vis DND is that theres too few ways to knock a flyer out of the air, and conversely, basically no ways to recover from a fall. Theres no give and take or push and pull to it.
Yes, DnD flight is DnD flight, and that is why I described it as a powerful option versus non-flight. I'm glad we finally find something to agree on.
I actually just recently designed my systems Flight Rules (and its sister rules in Swimming/Underwater rules). You can check them out in the attachment.(caveat, its a rough draft, so if you smell jank its likely more a big typo than a design issue). Just from the basic rules themselves, a lot of those issues from DND are explicated, and it'll be a matter of simply following through on the referenced Movement Drains, so that theres a healthy variety of them for all character types to access.
Irrelevant to a discussion of DnD design. But if you like we can talk about The Sentinel Comics RPG zones and how they relate to flight rules. It has just as much relevance as your rules do for a design meant for DnD.
See the parts where I talk about you having an arbitrarily narrow vision of how this class could be designed and are basically approaching it not from the bespoke, ground up approach Im using and instead approaching like you're hacking; taking the the crummy things already in DND, cobbling them together into an obviously cruddy take, and then using that to dismiss the idea.
Its very much like making a soup out of toilet water and using it to argue against the value of soup.
And mind, while Im partial to a single beast focus for Subclass reasons, there is nothing saying you couldn't do a compendium class with many different ones, and nothing saying I won't in the far future.
Yeah, strange how when people are talking about taking a thing in DnD and remaking it into a class for DnD, someone might start from a baseline of how DnD handles that concept. I mean, sure, maybe you'll have your beasts work on actions with the main character just standing by doing nothing, but that design largely failed in DnD, because people didn't like feeling like their character was doing nothing while the beast did all the work. Which is why it moved to the bonus action design.
And, frankly, you really can't do much other than either an action command or a bonus action command... because those are the only options in DnD. And you can say "but I'll design a system that doesn't use that!" well, good for you, I wish you good sales, but that won't be a DnD class then.
I refer to the abilities in question (those of Dar) as Psionics because thats literally what they were. The Beastmaster was originally a science fiction story, not high fantasy.
But what Dar could do doesn't have to be psionics, though the line between them and whatever we want to call your general supernatural at-will abilities (like the Fighters Second Wind) is blurry enough that it could go other way and still be suitable for the archtype.
The overall point though that you're glossing over to stoke your hate-fire for Psionics is that the Beastmaster should have abilities that bridge the physical, mental, and metaphysical gaps between them and their Beast(s). Seeing through the Eyes of your beast, for instance, need neither be magic nor Psionics, but that ability should be there, no matter which path its delivered in.
You'll find that I can and will continue to do so.
I love how you want to dismiss the community's reaction, their predictable, repeateded reaction, as my personal "hate-fire". Then, you follow up by just completely abandoning any need for psionics, stating it could be magic, or psionics, or just unexplained abilities that just exist.
Yeah, it can be any of those things. Magic tends to work best. Because DnD isn't a science fiction game. It is a fantasy game with a lot of magic. And, it is rather useful to design things for DnD while keeping in mind the type of game DnD is. A beastmaster class should have abilities related to their beasts. Also true, it just probably shouldn't be psionics, like you said it should, or reference something that the majority of the people who buy DnD have no conception or knowledge of (like you said it should)
