NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9084134" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Right, it is the invisible baseline that you didn't provide. Or somehow folded into the base class so that when you get a subclass you ruin the fantasy archetype by moving to have multiple beasts. Neither of those really feels me with confidence that you get it or have it.Ah, nothing like more insults. Makes me remember that I'm talking to you.Right, so you clearly speak with the majority with your... lack of anecdotal evidence, no google searches and just referencing an ancient TV show most of the modern DnD community has no idea existed. Yeah, totally the sign of someone who speaks with the voice of the people.Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true. I compared two things. That doesn't mean I wanted them in a death match against each other. I mean, you do know how to compare two things, right?Yes it is.Because good design doesn't just take into account ideal circumstances? Crazy, I know. Sometimes you have to just imagine what might happen outside of the perfect laboratory conditions where everything is perfect.No, it is irrelevant because "well if we change all the rules and assumptions" is how you win literally any argument. See, watch. In  my new game I'm making, every time you successfully hit with a spell, you have to roll or be smote by the gods for heresy. Therefore now DnD casters are balanced, because only martial characters can safely take actions. Sure, if we assume my new game rules are how the game works, then I've changed everything about caster supremacy. But since.... that isn't how DnD works... it is kind of irrelevant. And designing a caster apostate that gets advantage on those saves is rather pointless in a game that doesn't assume those saves are a thing.This is why responding to every half sentence of my post gives a warped view of what I was saying. Maybe don't do that. Because I address that exact point.Here is the entire quote. Read it as ONE thought process. Not whatever snippets of an idea you want to snipe atYeah, 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.Note how I point out you wouldn't be designing a DnD class if you decided to use a third action type that doesn't exist in DnD? Yes, you are correct. This is speculative design on a DnD class that doesn't exist. But it is speculative design for a SYSTEM that DOES exist. A system limited to actions and bonus actions. There are no other types of actions. IF you design relies on Hyperion Actions which XYZ, then you aren't designing for DnD. See how this entire thought goes together, highlighting how the system has limitations that reflect on the design, instead of some pithy thing you can score points on by pointing out that designing a class that doesn't exist is the point?You mean in your first post where you totally said it didn't have to be psionics? Right here? Oh, wait, sorry. That was the post where you claimed Psionics were key to delivering the Beast Master fantasy, and required a solid dip in Psionics. It was your NEXT post where you said it didn't have to be Psionics, right?Oh, wait, no. This is where you doubled down by claiming that if you just did it cool enough people would like it anyways. Man, this hate fire of mine most be really strong to have gone back in time and altered your posts where your original positon was nothing like what you are trying to claim it is. You'd think if I could travel through time and alter reality, I'd be doing something else.Could be because their point involves having a decent point instead of "this piece of media I like is clearly superior" And, I could discuss the issues with a class that needs an entire sub-system to properly work. But I see the idealized version of re-writing the exploration pillar as similar to the idealized version of the crafting rules that makes the Artificer better. It would be nice, but it shouldn't be neccessary. Also, I don't have a problem with rangers having spells. So, their goal of making things not spells doesn't really appeal to me.</blockquote>

Verification