Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9083230" data-attributes="member: 6801228">So where is it in your proposal? Not providing the option is.... ignoring it.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 character3) In this link (<a href="https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=AB5stBi6hH-rfRlNdRm9RQAalzy9_p2EPQ:1690943691812&q=Beastmaster+Ranger&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjaoNeQ-LyAAxXYmokEHRsJDfQQ0pQJegQICRAB&biw=1366&bih=620&dpr=1" target="_blank">Beastmaster Ranger - Google Search</a>) , 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.More pointless insults. So exciting.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.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.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, 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?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.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.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 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)</blockquote>

Verification