Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9082208" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Keeping things exactly like the designers have indicated they are keeping them? Yes, that is an obvious thing.No, insulting someone ISN'T relevant, it just causes harsh feelings.The Bear and the Snake aren't identical. The class and subclass are identical. Because obviously they would be, because you can't make a subclass for every animal in the book. You can't even make one for every type of beast. You'd be talking about dozens of subclasses, more than all the rest of the game COMBINED.So you have to consolidate, and once you start consolidating... you need a REASON to break the pattern. This isn't a lack of creativity, it is looking at the material present, and extrapolating from what exists. Currently, all creatures that can fly and all creatures that can swim, and all creatures that walk on land or climb are all handled by a single subclass. If you want to argue that subclass can support an entire class and multiple subclasses, you need to present something beyond "well obviously you are stupid and uncreative if you don't see how this could work."I'm ignoring your game, because your game isn't One DnD or 5th Edition. Your game is rather irrelevant to the discussion. And... yes obviously? I mean, seriously, you want to make a beast master class then ignore the single most popular desire of the people that want that class? How the heck do you think that will go over?!Like, I seriously struggle to see how you think this is a successful design, if you don't address the people who want Trinket, but not a burden.That you keep insulting me instead of answering shows you have no idea why my point matters, which is not a good sign for this supposed design.And you've failed to capture what people want from the subclass already. They don't want a family of bears, with the cute fuzzy baby bears fighting to the death alongside their mother.They want ONE animal companion.None of this fits the fantasy people want. Heck, even if they WANT the bear family (which should be like the wolf pack subclass you want) you are in-building a story of the cubs LEAVING.Like, you truly don't understand the people who want Beastmasters if you think THIS will appeal to them.If you are designing something, it should be balanced. Flight is a powerful ability, especially when paired with a ranged attack. A flyer with a ranged attack who does more damage and has better defenses than a land-based option is so laughably unbalanced as to be ludicrous. So, if I were to buff the bear... it would have to be tougher and deal more damage... which is exactly the same scenario as the dragon being weaker than the bear.Unless you YOLO balance, that is just how it has to work. You can't just make one option many times better than the others.So what was your answer to python strength versus venom bear?"most of which don't necessarily need to track to any previous or current take on Psionics, as long as they aren't magic."So... you want to definetly include psionic abilities.... that don't need to conform to any existing idea of psionics, they just can't be magic... which most of psionics in DnD are magic....Yeah, that's totally what people will think when you tell them the class will have psionic abilities, something that is completely unlike psionic abilities. Also, again, the whole "the DND Community has issues with the Psionic(s)" isn't just something you can ignore and blame on WoTC being bad at game design. It is a serious problem for any concept rooted in needing psionics, no matter how unlike psionics you make it.</blockquote>

Verification