Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Zardnaar Jun 22, 2015 13:39:23	Generally on these forums and other forums there is a large consensus on the Beastmaster Ranger being the worst class in the game. Why? I would argue that it was an over reaction due to editions past namely the Druid from 3E.    Is allowing a class to have a pet whcih can make independent attacks actually broken? The game designers seem to think so as Rangers also lost this ability in the 4E PHB. A large reason causing CoDzilla in 3.5 was the Druid class. To break the Cleric you had to make use of a lot of non core material, the 3.5 Druid was inherently broken full stop. It could tank, cast spells, cast spells in animal form and have a pet which could out fight the fighter espicially with spell buffs.     Perosnally I do not regard the 3E Druid/Ranger though as the definitive archtype of the class. In AD&D Druids and Rangers did not get the pet until around level 10 and even then you did not get a great one in terms of combat ability. Think of a wolf, giant eagle or a unicorn if you were very very lucky. That pet also came late int he class abilities.   In 1E the Ranger was an outright better fighter with wilderness skills. In 2E they gave it the dual wielding thing and the class was really a skirmisher that was a decent class with core material but obsoleted a bit with things like the FIghters Handbook. The 3.0 ranger was underpowered, the 3.5 Ranger I thought was one of the best designed classes in the edition in terms of power vs interesting abilites. Note I was not a fan of 3.x spellcasters at least CoDzilla+Wizards, I liked the Bard as well.    Was the 3.5 Ranger with pet broken? Probably not because the pet was only half as good as the Druids pet. The Druids pet was outright broken IMHO and it was something they did not get in AD&D. The Moon Druid is based roughly on the 3.5 Druid but spreading its abilities out over 20 levels (natural spell level 18 instead of 6) and some restrictions on wildshape. The 5E land Druid IMHO seems more based off the 2E Druid which itself was a nerfed version of the 1E Druid.. The Beastmaster seems to have been hit with the design ideas from 4E when the main problem regarding pets was not a major problem in the 1st place. The main problem has always been what pets you could actually get followed by what you can actually turn into. Wildshape/shapechange was not that broken in 2E either as you got it at level 7 and could only turn into medium sized animals 3/day.    So I think the deisigners got scared of the preception of pets from 3.5 where the Druid and not the ranger was the big offender and over reacted tothe problem much like the designers of 4E did in regards to the actual problems 3.5 actually had. You can kind of see this in 5E deisgn where classes that are supposed to be good at fighting get extra attacks and/or a bonus dice of damge while other classes get a bonus dice of damage (Clerics, Rogues) while classes that are not supposed to be good at combat get neither (Wizards, Land Druids).     The way I would have designed the Beastmaster is at low levels you more or less get a familiar such as an owl or cat or whatever and by level 10 or 11 you start getting access to more powerful forms that can attack independently of your actions as you are giving up an extra attack relative to the fighter. The hunters quarry spell also would have been a class ability of the hunter ranger that the beast master ranger would not have got. The Druids would have ended up with Wildshape, the Ranger would have been the pet class and uber damage to single target class.
#2 AaronOfBarbaria Jun 22, 2015 18:07:37	The beastmaster ranger doesn't suck, there are just a lot of people that want it to be the "does more damage" ranger type when it is clearly designed to be the "has more utility" ranger type who freak out about the beastmaster not doing the damage other rangers can manage.   ...and there are a few folks that just plain hate that the beastmaster isn't giving them full reign over two full-participation combatants because anything less than two independent creatures that happen to work together as a team just can't satisfy their uncompromising stance on the matter.
#3 dmgorgon Jun 22, 2015 18:32:19	The entire concept of shared actions is what makes that class blow IMO,     Most people I know have dumped the restriction.    The use of the bonus action to commond pets and summons is the most consistant and intuitive method.       As for the pets you get,  it's largely up to the DM.  You don't need exacting rules for that sort of thing.
#4 Slit518 Jun 22, 2015 18:43:39	Can you use your pet to flank thus gaining Advantage on your attacks?
#5 GladiusLegis Jun 22, 2015 19:06:01	Slit518 wrote:
#6 FFSAA Jun 22, 2015 19:29:53	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#7 lawrencehoy Jun 22, 2015 21:21:37	FFSAA wrote:
#8 kalil Jun 22, 2015 21:56:10	What part of this fantastic utility offered by the beastmaster isn't straight up matched or trumphed by the Find Familiar spell?
#9 Zardnaar Jun 22, 2015 23:11:16	GladiusLegis wrote:
#10 lawrencehoy Jun 22, 2015 23:30:45	kalil wrote:
#11 Xeviat-DM Jun 22, 2015 23:22:39	What if the beast's damage were lower? What if, instead of using the actual animal stats, they used their own stats?   Hunter's Colossus Slayer is, quite nearly, +1d6 damage to all attacks. Assuming that TWFing is the standard Ranger melee mode, at that level it is a potential of +2d6 if both attacks hit. So long as the beast's damage doesn't exceed 7 on average (or max 12), it'd probably be okay.   You might want to go in and give the Hunter ranger some Expertise to make up for the Beast Master Ranger having an extra set of eyes and ears. But all the utility the pet gives eats into the pet's offense, so it's really the same as using your spells for utility vs. using them for offense.
#12 Psikerlord Jun 23, 2015 0:25:39	Slit518 wrote:
#13 Psikerlord Jun 23, 2015 0:26:56	Zardnaar wrote:
#14 Psikerlord Jun 23, 2015 0:29:51	I think the pet is quite ok provided it can use HD to heal (confirmed in latest errata), gets 3 death saves before it dies (up to DM I guess) and the ranger takes sentinel, so that if someone attacks his pet, the ranger gets a free hit on the bugger.   Personally however if I were to play a ranger, I would make up a Pet Feat to make the pet better (at least give it some save profs, more hp, or possibly codify the one action to command and then it keeps doing it until you change commands).
(Reply to #6) AaronOfBarbaria	FFSAA wrote:
#16 Dwarfslayer Jun 23, 2015 6:49:38	I really hate the shared actions. It's fine to require some sort of action to give a command initially, but your pet should at least be able to act independently and continue to follow command after you've given it. You should not have to constantly tell your wolf to keep biting the guy every 6 seconds, otherwise the wolf stands around like a lifeless construct when not being told what to do. It should attack until you call it off, or until its wounded sufficiently that it has a morale break.   The wolf doesn't have to be super powerful, but at least make it feel like a trained animal and not some kind of magic spell that requires constant direction to do anything. A wolf or bear isn't going to sit around doing nothing while an enemy attacks it, just because the ranger hasn't given the "Kill HIM!" command in the last 6 seconds.
#17 ChrisCarlson Jun 23, 2015 6:28:58	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#18 mellored Jun 23, 2015 6:49:52	I agree the rules are a bit wonky, and that it would of made more sense, both thematicly and for simplicity, to allow beast fully indepenant actions.  But that's not what makes them "suck" (balance wise).   Beastmasters "suck" because they can be "disarmed" for 8 hours.  Give them a way to get their beast back quicker (by expending a spell slot), and your fine.       If you do let them have fully independant actions, you'd need to shift some upgrades.  Like not giving it a damage or to-hit boost till level 7, and removing the beasts multi-attack.
#19 Marandahir Jun 23, 2015 8:34:16	My general fix is that the beast acts on its own, as a friendly NPC character played by the DM, unless the Beast Master Ranger uses his or her action to give commands to the beast, which moves it into the hands of the player. The DM's main usage of the beast is in the particularly instinctual functions. It's not going to stop attacking one enemy and switch to another unless the Ranger says so. But it's also not going to just stand still like a frozen statue. If the Ranger is in trouble, the beast may attack the foe. If the beast is in over its head, it might run away and retreat if not commanded to keep fighting. Honestly, the best comparison in recent media I can make to this is Owen and his Velociraptors in Jurassic World. He's found a way to tame his raptors enough that they follow his lead – he's the alpha – as long as he's the alpha, but they'd turn against him or attack humans if he wasn't spending his action or they weren't fully focused on hunting a specific target he's set them on with with his action.
(Reply to #15) Lord_Ventnor	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#21 iserith Jun 23, 2015 9:00:34	DPR determines spotlight only if the game is about reducing pools of hit points to zero to "win." For those who "win" D&D by having a good time together and creating an exciting, memorable story - like the Basic Rules tell us - the beastmaster ranger seems to work just fine.   To that end, I've had two beastmaster rangers in my games. The first one was a freedom-loving half-elf with a wolf in Ravenloft who struggled against a brutal totalitarian state and ultimately toppled it before losing his mind over the loss of his mother and becoming a Dark Lord. The second one was a human with a flock of ravens in a Viking-esque scenario. She was easily the most memorable character, a shieldmaiden protecting her village from the dracolich, Fimbulvetr, on the eve before Ragnarok and earning her way into Valhalla.    How the beast's mechanics worked or how much damage they could dish out had no noticeable bearing on these awesome outcomes. Neither beast companion died despite being in pretty deadly combats. (The shieldmaiden ranger died though, but it was actually a good thing to die in honorable combat in this game.)   So, tell me about the awesome stories in your game the beast master ranger helped create. And if you failed to achieve this goal of play, how did DPR or the action economy contribute to that?
#22 bawylie Jun 23, 2015 9:10:07	Related experience. I played as a beast master ranger. From time to time, when we split the party, the ranger would go one place and the wolf somewhere else. I had a decent time RP-ing as the wolf, too. Lots of fun.
#23 RCanine Jun 23, 2015 9:10:43	As usual, Iserith wins.
#24 mellored Jun 23, 2015 9:34:12	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #20) AaronOfBarbaria	Lord_Ventnor wrote:
#26 iserith Jun 23, 2015 9:43:27	mellored wrote:
#27 shintashi Jun 23, 2015 9:53:23	my old DM freaked out when i told him how 5e Beastmaster works. To be fair, the Beastmaster pet has better stats than the druid shapeshift currently. Additionally, it's better than it was in 2nd edition. Incidentally, however, the Conan analog B movie: Beast Master, had a guy with SEVERAL pets.   This is where 5e is failing.   The guy had ferrets for spying & indoors infiltration. he had Birds for overhead scouting. he had a big arse tiger painted black to look like a panther to do combat   Think about that in terms of utility and action economy.   The proper way to rule the pet, is 'sick em boy'. That should definitely cost 1 action. No argument. However, the animal should then act like Hunter's Mark - always locked on, always sicking, chasing, attacking, until you use an action to change the command. You could also have special commands to capture, to render prone (by pouncing), or to blind (like what a bird might do). You could have a follow command that allows the pet to engage steath.   But during melee, say 5 or 6 rounds, only one of your actions should be required to target and kill a single foe for all actions the pet takes.   The pets should also have a default "assist" to defend their master.   When I watch police dogs, they oftentimes have to command the dog to NOT attack.   Some video games have really effective pet management routines. In FF14, your summoner's pet could be commanded individually for each action, or they could be left on auto, with the different pets having different AI. They had a bird too you could put on Defend, Attack, or Healer mode, or generalized AI where it would do what it could.   In general, when you attack a creature, the pet auto attacks the creature too unless you tell it not to. I expect in erratta or future prints of 5e, they will have the Beast Master fixed. You don't need to print a whole new edition or anything, but there are some tweaky things that should be fixed.
#28 iserith Jun 23, 2015 10:02:55	shintashi wrote:
#29 dmgorgon Jun 23, 2015 10:12:27	lawrencehoy wrote:
#30 dmgorgon Jun 23, 2015 10:13:32	mellored wrote:
#31 arnwolf666 Jun 23, 2015 10:19:17	I have never seen a Beastmaster class I liked.  It's either going to be silly or overpowered.  Generally the pet would get killed very easily, a wolf in a CR15 encounter, or it would make the Ranger very powerful with a second critter.  Or you get silly mechanics like commanding the critter is an action.  Is talking to a fellow PC an action, NO.  Why would a critter be any different.  I am sure the practice and train as a unit.  Now that said I am all for building a cool Beastmaster.  Go for it.  I don't think this archetype falls in the underpowered department.  I think it falls in the silly mechanics, it is not a DPR king, but the DPR is not bad, and the utility is okay.  It's really an archetype that has low priority with my players, but my philosphy has always been that if you don't like a class or archetype then build your own.  Nothing wrong with that, I agree the archetype is on the silly side as designed for my taste.
#32 mellored Jun 23, 2015 10:25:27	iserith wrote:
#33 iserith Jun 23, 2015 10:29:04	mellored wrote:
#34 dmgorgon Jun 23, 2015 10:39:53	iserith wrote:
#35 iserith Jun 23, 2015 10:46:08	dmgorgon wrote:
#36 shintashi Jun 23, 2015 10:47:20	isereth... did you read the rules?   I know i didn't when i posted a whole section on Druids... but before i go off to correct my mistakes, let me point out something.   Choose A (read: ONE, not 4) beast that is no larger than Medium and that has a challenge rating of 1/4 or lower   It takes its turn on your initiative, though it doesn’t take an action unless you command it to. On your turn, you can verbally command the beast where to move (no action required by you). You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help action. Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one w eapon attack yourself when you command the beast to take the Attack action.   Tiger panted black to look like panther: TlGER Large beast, unaligned Armor Class 12 Hit Points 37 (5d10 + 10) Speed 40ft. STR 17 (.+3) DEX 15 (+2) CON 14 (+2) Skills Perception +3, Stealth +6 INT 3 (- 4) WIS 12 (+1) Senses darkvision 60ft., passive Perception 13 languages- Challenge 1 (200 XP)   The character the Beast Master is based on, cannot actually be reproduced by the Beast Master class, at any level.
#37 mellored Jun 23, 2015 10:49:05	iserith wrote:
#38 iserith Jun 23, 2015 10:53:31	shintashi wrote:
#39 iserith Jun 23, 2015 10:54:54	mellored wrote:
#40 shintashi Jun 23, 2015 10:58:59	iserith wrote:
#41 iserith Jun 23, 2015 11:06:01	shintashi wrote:
#42 mellored Jun 23, 2015 11:11:29	iserith wrote:
#43 FFSAA Jun 23, 2015 11:15:36	iserith wrote:
#44 iserith Jun 23, 2015 11:16:18	mellored wrote:
#45 bawylie Jun 23, 2015 11:18:00	The way I see a character class (and subclass) is that it's a collection of entitlements. In other words, you will get the things listed there - at minimum.   So when the beast master ranger picks a companion, he gets that one automatically. In the game, he might obtain more companions, and I would not limit him to a single one simply because his subclass says he gets one.    Just as I allow my wizards to research spells and add them to their spell lists, and clerics to petition their deities for spells not on their lists, and draw up quests for my fighters to obtain magical arms and armor, I would also permit a BMR to train up additional companions. Why wouldn't I?
#46 iserith Jun 23, 2015 11:19:07	FFSAA wrote:
#47 iserith Jun 23, 2015 11:19:57	bawylie wrote:
#48 FFSAA Jun 23, 2015 11:20:24	lawrencehoy wrote:
#49 mellored Jun 23, 2015 11:25:00	iserith wrote:
#50 FFSAA Jun 23, 2015 11:25:59	iserith wrote:
#51 FFSAA Jun 23, 2015 11:30:21	iserith wrote:
#52 mellored Jun 23, 2015 11:30:26	Since we're on the topic...     What balance changes would need to be made if you gave the beast independant actions?   Would removing the +proficency to damage be enough?
(Reply to #52) FrogReaver	mellored wrote:
#54 mellored Jun 23, 2015 11:47:08	FrogReaver wrote:
(Reply to #51) bawylie	FFSAA wrote:
#56 mellored Jun 23, 2015 12:35:39	bawylie wrote:
#57 iserith Jun 23, 2015 12:38:36	mellored wrote:
#58 iserith Jun 23, 2015 12:43:20	FFSAA wrote:
#59 iserith Jun 23, 2015 12:45:34	FFSAA wrote:
#60 ModusPonens Jun 23, 2015 14:30:53	There's nothing so bad about the Beastmaster that one focused feat can't fix.   Beastlord Prerequisite: Ranger's Companion class feature You're like, seriously into having animal companions, gaining the following benefits: • Your maximum number of beast companions increases by your Charisma modifier (minimum of +1). If you verbally command your beast companions on your turn, you must give them the same command. • Your animal companions' hit point maximum increases by twice your ranger level. • The maximum challenge rating for your animal companions increases to 1.    /drops the mic
#61 Ghost_Gallus Jun 23, 2015 14:46:37	Animal Handling. It's a thing that exists. You don't need a class feature to have a pet.
#62 GladiusLegis Jun 23, 2015 15:19:46	Ghost_Gallus wrote:
#63 shintashi Jun 23, 2015 15:38:59	A variant on Modus Ponens. We could have something like a cluster calculation similar to the Animate object rules, where different sized creatures count for different points toward the total of "10". We can throw in the Monster manual 'swarm' for example, and have the Ranger's total beasts calculated. For example, it could be 1/4 CR swarm/set of tiny ferrets + 1/2 CR large panther + 1/4 CR Eagle.   The Beast Master could command up to an Intelligence Total equal to say, their Wisdom Bonus + Their Proficiency bonus, or something like that. So if there were 3 or four creatures with 1-3 intelligence, you would have total requirement of between 3 and 12.     The sorting could be done many different ways. Total CR... OR Total Intelligence. There are balancing values in each, for example, swarm of snakes is only int 1, but swarm of rats is int 2, and one Tiger is int 3. Apparently Swarms aren't governed by their intelligence, but by CR. So there's 'rats' for example, which individually are CR 0.   How do they mitigate Zombie master Necromancers and the like?
#64 ModusPonens Jun 23, 2015 15:50:21	shintashi wrote:
#65 dmgorgon Jun 23, 2015 17:23:32	iserith wrote:
#66 iserith Jun 23, 2015 17:40:35	dmgorgon wrote:
#67 Ghost_Gallus Jun 23, 2015 18:01:08	GladiusLegis wrote:
#68 iserith Jun 23, 2015 18:40:10	Ghost_Gallus wrote:
#69 dmgorgon Jun 23, 2015 19:20:24	iserith wrote:
#70 iserith Jun 23, 2015 19:42:58	dmgorgon wrote:
#71 SleepsInTraffic Jun 23, 2015 19:38:38	Just to be clear, if you are playing a beast master and you don't have at least two or three beast companion backups roaming around near you all the time, you are doing it wrong. Outside of just keeping the animal fed and generally happy (there is a reason you aren't supposed to feed bears) It's called animal friendship and at first level you can cast it twice a day to potentially have two beast companions all day (concentration free) that act independently and have no limitations as far as hit die or cr are concerned. Also if you have access to magic items grabbing a bag of tricks really rounds out the character concept because the bag of tricks animals never disappear and are more easily controlled than the beast master rangers companion, and also act independently. Speak with animals is also helpful. On top of that you still get a combat style which makes you at least minimally effective on your own let alone with the best companions added in.
#72 SleepsInTraffic Jun 23, 2015 19:43:37	To use a relevant pop culture reference, Chris Pratt's character from Jurassic world is a level 3 beast master ranger. He has three raptors that he casts animal friendship on, and 1 that is his companion, and he has the ranged fighting style.
#73 Tfuture Jun 23, 2015 20:28:16	Gonna preface this post by saying that i dont have my PHB handy so i apologize and welcome corrections of mistakes in the post with regards to levels etc.   I find it funny that no one (as far as i can see) has brought up the comparison with the Find Steed spell... which is pretty much better than the Ranger's companion entire subclass... (except for the HP, but who cares u can just summon a new one) It has the shared spell ability(which the ranger doesnt get until level 17 or something), is large, can be used as a mount and can act independently... why would giving this type of ability as the ranger subclass be overpowered seeing as its a lvl 2 spell?   But if were just talking about balancing the ranger, i think that letting the ranger use a size catergory larger than him... so medium PC's could have bears etc (pretty classic cliche beast companion) and allowing them to have a beast of CR 1/4 of their level (similar to moon druid forms) would make them at least playable... because at the moment, as someone else has said.. until level 11 you might as well have find familiar instead.    Alternatively, even having something like Hunter's Mark affect your pet too might help and make them more playable.
#74 lawrencehoy Jun 24, 2015 0:09:52	FFSAA wrote:
#75 lawrencehoy Jun 24, 2015 0:39:50	shintashi wrote:
#76 Xeviat-DM Jun 24, 2015 0:42:06	Looking at the Hunter features, if you wanted a Beast to be independent, it's damage could only increase at 3rd and 11th levels, as those are the levels where the hunger abilities directly add to their damage.   Colossus Slayer is simple to look at; it's an average of +4.5 damage per round IF one of your attacks hits (generally 65%, or 87.75% if dual wielding).   Giant Killer is harder; it's a reaction attack at full strength; it takes an action and it is conditional on actually being the one who is attacked.   Horde Breaker is a little harder too, but it might be most comparable to the Pet; it is conditional on there being two targets within 5 feet of your primary target.   So, Giant Killer and Horde Breaker both give you a single extra attack, but they're restrictive; Colossus Slayer is flat damage, but it won't work if you're the first to strike.   The wolf does more damage (7) than colossus slayer, but likely less than giant killer and horde breaker (who could be 2d6+3 or 1d8+5 or accurate 1d8+3). It would be predicated on hitting, but so are these others. With the buff from being the ranger's companion, it's damage is 9 on average, which is very close to the duelist longsword or the defensive greatsword. So, it's damage is comparable to giant kiler or horde breaker, but without those restrictions.   It can be attacked, though. At 3rd level, it has 12 hp and AC 15. Does that it can be attacked make up for the less restrictive nature of giant killer and horde breaker? It requires positioning, and it can be dropped in 1 hit from a CR X opponent (monster damage increases at +5 per level, so the beast is always weak to opponents equal the the ranger's CR).   Keeping the pet up will cost the ranger's spell slots for cure wounds. Does that balance it? Lets think about this.
#77 Psikerlord Jun 24, 2015 0:55:39	Marandahir wrote:
#78 dmgorgon Jun 24, 2015 6:58:14	iserith wrote:
#79 SleepsInTraffic Jun 24, 2015 6:57:27	I think my major problem with the beast master ranger is that there are other ways to accomplish the goal (pet having character) that accomplish the goal way better. I mean merely having a bag of tricks will net you a better animal companion than the beast master one would be. Unfortunately people howl at the moon when a player has two full compliments of actions every round, so getting a properly functioning beast master is pretty much out of the question.
#80 iserith Jun 24, 2015 7:19:08	dmgorgon wrote:
#81 dmgorgon Jun 24, 2015 7:21:32	SleepsInTraffic wrote:
#82 iserith Jun 24, 2015 8:26:55	SleepsInTraffic wrote:
#83 dmgorgon Jun 24, 2015 7:55:19	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #77) Mechatarrasque	Psikerlord wrote:
#85 iserith Jun 24, 2015 8:06:51	dmgorgon wrote:
(Reply to #82) SleepsInTraffic	iserith wrote:
#87 iserith Jun 24, 2015 9:43:18	SleepsInTraffic wrote:
#88 ChrisCarlson Jun 24, 2015 10:25:56	In spite of all the handwringing, I find myself repeatedly falling back on my personal experiences with 5e beastmaster rangers thus far. And in all three cases, I just don't see it. They played just fine. The players had fun playing them. The beasts did cool stuff. In many instances, the characters (and/or their pets) exceled, stood out, or otherwise performed wonderfully.   So no. I'm not buying into the same ol' same ol' complaints. IMO, they are the results of a couple things: 1) User error as the player either has flawed expectations or not taking the subclass for the right reasons, or 2) Antisceptic white-room theorizing that rarely emulates actual play.
(Reply to #87) SleepsInTraffic	iserith wrote:
#90 iserith Jun 24, 2015 11:16:12	SleepsInTraffic wrote:
#91 GladiusLegis Jun 24, 2015 11:16:04	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #54) FrogReaver	mellored wrote:
#93 ChrisCarlson Jun 24, 2015 11:22:58	SleepsInTraffic wrote:
#94 iserith Jun 24, 2015 11:25:53	GladiusLegis wrote:
#95 dmgorgon Jun 24, 2015 11:28:10	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#96 LordTwig Jun 24, 2015 11:54:28	The Beastmaster Ranger isn't actually weak, which makes me worry that WotC doesn't actually understand the problem. It is not that the Beastmaser is under powered, it is that the mechanics are clunky and don't make much sense.   Iserith has been trying real hard to prevent the Beastmaster from being fixed, and I hope he fails. In addition to the "only one of us can Dash" problem, which slows down the Ranger if you decide to use the combat rules, there is the "only one of us can Withdrawal" problem which pretty much guarantees you are using the combat rules.   So how about it Iserith? Ranger and companion are engaged with kobolds. Big dragon shows up and Ranger knows he has to run. Does he take off and let his companion take the Opportunity Attacks? Or does he take them himself? Why can't they both Withdrawal? It makes no sense.   Past 5th level if the Ranger's companion is fighting 30' away the Ranger can only get one good attack in six seconds. But if the companion is fighter in another room at the exact same time he can get two good attacks in. Why?   Sure you can just ignore it and say something like, "Well he just is just able to fight better when his companion isn't around." but isn't that the opposite of how it should work?   So the Beastmaster, not weak or broken. Just nonsensical.   Oh, and my Ranger also actually cares for his animal companion and doesn't want him to die. He would have a grim view of someone that just decided to have dinner after their companion died.
#97 iserith Jun 24, 2015 12:12:32	LordTwig wrote:
#98 mellored Jun 24, 2015 12:16:39	FrogReaver wrote:
#99 Reinhart Jun 24, 2015 14:47:00	Considering how well D&D trains and explains to DM's how to use those rules, maybe the game really is the problem. A great DM can make any crap-sack of rules into a fun experience. We do it all the time. That doesn't mean the quality of rules don't matter. Beast master, as written, is not a very good subclass. When your entire subclass can be eclipsed by a simpleton hireling named Hodor, something is amiss.
#100 iserith Jun 24, 2015 14:53:22	Reinhart wrote:
#101 Ghost_Gallus Jun 24, 2015 14:58:35	GladiusLegis wrote:
#102 FFSAA Jun 24, 2015 15:05:56	iserith wrote:
#103 ChrisCarlson Jun 24, 2015 15:14:44	FFSAA wrote:
#104 edwin_su Jun 24, 2015 15:21:26	shintashi wrote:
#105 arnwolf666 Jun 24, 2015 15:31:47	It's not my taste, but the PF summoner might be the route to take.  A more robust critter while the Beast Master has only one attack per round.
#106 shintashi Jun 24, 2015 15:47:31	i dont think it is fair to new players to crank out optimized tables that display an experienced high level character with multiple animals from training, summoning, class abilities, and magic items like a bag of tricks pet.   You don't want to reference some obscure forum calculation about godlike kobold quintuple class/race combinations or a stack of boons and magic items with classes and godlike stats that add up to a 70+ AC. That's not how you adjudicate whether a class is balanced or off kilter.   You instead look at the class for what it is, at low level, mid level, and high level. You close one eye and squint with the other while drunk and then white room the numbers. You examine pregen scenario based play, opportunistic play, and sandbox options. You assume your player is 1/3rd bubbly thematic rules lite, 1/3rd rules rapist hard core number cruncher, and 1/3rd team player dungeon crawler.   then if the character the average spits out is still blatantly obviously screwed up - if you have to depend on the player being extra story based to keep the power down or to survive, or extra rules rapish just to keep up with the rest, or if the character is really just a particular tool in the party's kit that gets 10 minutes of screen time a year when pulled out and dusted off and not just treated like a novelty mascot or baggage boy...  - then the class needs work.
#107 iserith Jun 24, 2015 17:00:32	FFSAA wrote:
(Reply to #93) SleepsInTraffic	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#109 iserith Jun 24, 2015 17:04:28	SleepsInTraffic wrote:
#110 Tfuture Jun 24, 2015 18:11:40	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #110) arnwolf666	Tfuture wrote:
#112 Ghost_Gallus Jun 24, 2015 18:15:43	You presume balance requires combat parity. That is a flawed premise.
(Reply to #112) arnwolf666	Ghost_Gallus wrote:
#114 iserith Jun 24, 2015 18:39:24	Tfuture wrote:
#115 iserith Jun 24, 2015 18:35:07	arnwolf666 wrote:
#116 Xeviat-DM Jun 24, 2015 18:36:09	Some of us like there to be balance between characters in combat and the other pillars. Some of us don't care. Some of us seem to actively want there to be no or less balance. The game should be modable for all of these outcomes. Since it's easier to make a weak combatant in a balanced system than to make a good combatant out of any build in a bad system, I say striving towards balanced gameplay is for the best.   Few people have commented on the actual balance of the beastmaster when compared to the hunter.
#117 iserith Jun 24, 2015 18:38:34	Xeviat-DM wrote:
#118 Tfuture Jun 24, 2015 18:44:01	iserith wrote:
#119 iserith Jun 24, 2015 19:00:52	Tfuture wrote:
(Reply to #119) Tfuture	iserith wrote:
#121 Thunaer Jun 24, 2015 19:07:10	Tfuture wrote:
(Reply to #121) Tfuture	Thunaer wrote:
#123 iserith Jun 24, 2015 19:21:30	Tfuture wrote:
#124 Tfuture Jun 24, 2015 19:27:17	iserith wrote:
#125 iserith Jun 24, 2015 19:28:26	Tfuture wrote:
#126 iserith Jun 24, 2015 19:29:54	Tfuture wrote:
(Reply to #125) Tfuture	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #126) Tfuture	iserith wrote:
#129 iserith Jun 24, 2015 19:33:48	Tfuture wrote:
#130 iserith Jun 24, 2015 19:34:44	Tfuture wrote:
(Reply to #129) Tfuture	iserith wrote:
#132 iserith Jun 24, 2015 19:42:31	Tfuture wrote:
#133 Tfuture Jun 24, 2015 19:45:29	iserith wrote:
#134 iserith Jun 24, 2015 19:46:45	Tfuture wrote:
#135 iserith Jun 24, 2015 19:50:33	Tfuture wrote:
#136 Tfuture Jun 24, 2015 19:51:27	iserith wrote:
#137 iserith Jun 24, 2015 19:53:26	Tfuture wrote:
#138 Tfuture Jun 24, 2015 19:57:43	iserith wrote:
#139 Tfuture Jun 24, 2015 19:59:13	iserith wrote:
#140 iserith Jun 24, 2015 19:58:23	Tfuture wrote:
#141 Tfuture Jun 24, 2015 20:08:05	iserith wrote:
#142 iserith Jun 24, 2015 20:04:58	Tfuture wrote:
(Reply to #142) Tfuture	iserith wrote:
#144 iserith Jun 24, 2015 20:08:33	Tfuture wrote:
#145 iserith Jun 24, 2015 20:10:44	Tfuture wrote:
#146 Tfuture Jun 24, 2015 20:17:00	iserith wrote:
#147 iserith Jun 24, 2015 20:21:24	Tfuture wrote:
#148 Tfuture Jun 24, 2015 20:24:45	iserith wrote:
#149 iserith Jun 24, 2015 20:24:31	Tfuture wrote:
#150 iserith Jun 24, 2015 20:28:20	Tfuture wrote:
#151 Tfuture Jun 24, 2015 20:29:51	iserith wrote:
#152 Tfuture Jun 24, 2015 20:31:20	iserith wrote:
#153 iserith Jun 24, 2015 20:33:41	Tfuture wrote:
#154 Tfuture Jun 24, 2015 20:44:00	iserith wrote:
#155 ChrisCarlson Jun 24, 2015 20:50:26	Tfuture wrote:
#156 Ghost_Gallus Jun 24, 2015 20:53:50	D&D (and nearly every RPG) have an abundance of combat mechnics due to the nature of combat. Exploration and social interaction are not the hard do. It is not because the game is supposed to be about murder-hobos. Killing everythong that walks it not the only thing a character can add to the group. Combat parity is not the only metric of "balance".
(Reply to #155) Tfuture	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#158 ChrisCarlson Jun 24, 2015 20:55:44	Tfuture wrote:
#159 Tfuture Jun 24, 2015 20:58:33	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#160 ChrisCarlson Jun 24, 2015 21:02:12	I can't imagine how any of that even remotely applies to this conversation here.   There's no escaping a bad DM. Well, short of actually escaping them, I suppose...
(Reply to #109) SleepsInTraffic	iserith wrote:
#162 SirAntoine Jun 24, 2015 22:01:20	Rangers are the only class not overpowered, but beastmasters could use more power.  They need to be able to do more when their animals aren't available, as well.
#163 ORC_Cricket Jun 24, 2015 22:15:34	We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.   You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct   Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.   Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.     Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
(Reply to #159) CCS	Tfuture wrote:
#165 iserith Jun 25, 2015 7:02:59	Tfuture wrote:
#166 iserith Jun 25, 2015 7:08:05	SleepsInTraffic wrote:
#167 ChrisCarlson Jun 25, 2015 7:14:41	SleepsInTraffic wrote:
(Reply to #105) Mechatarrasque	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #167) SleepsInTraffic	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#170 ChrisCarlson Jun 25, 2015 7:28:51	Ugh. One of the most obnoxious, painful and unfun session of PF I ever had to endure was because there was a summoner in the group. What a royal PITA.
#171 ChrisCarlson Jun 25, 2015 7:31:58	SleepsInTraffic wrote:
(Reply to #171) SleepsInTraffic	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#173 ChrisCarlson Jun 25, 2015 9:33:13	SleepsInTraffic wrote:
#174 FFSAA Jun 25, 2015 9:40:09	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#175 ChrisCarlson Jun 25, 2015 9:43:32	FFSAA wrote:
#176 shintashi Jun 25, 2015 9:50:07	Balance requires balanced Screen Time without being a Joke.   not everyone (most dont actually) have the "class clown" gene.   Screen time comes in intensity and duration. Intensity of Screen Time x Duration of your turn compared with the rest.   it's ok if you are a church mouse as long as when you step up to do something, people remember it. Over 20 gaming sessions, when people remember the four different player characters, the stories people should share over BBQ or Booze should be roughly equal. Sometimes a Nova character who hardly ever does something is still talked about a lot because of that awesome or crazy thing they did. Even though they didn't get tons of attacks like a fighter every combat, or even though they didn't get to do a Charisma based proficiency check with every NPC, they are still remembered easily for some dramatic moments in the story.   A Beast Master has the potential for lots of screen time, and lots of memory, but there is a near concensus that something seems off. They feel like a side kick NPC hireling mechanically. Why should we have a beast master when some other class can just summon a creature to do the same things, possibly better?   Yesterday, I fought a Purple Worm with 4 other players. It went into the tunnels. That made it extremely difficult to attack, and I think 1) if we had a pet class instead of a hunter we could have sent them down the other tunnel... 2) the purple worm would kill Fluffles in one hit... never mind.   Maybe if a Dragon Magazine had some Pet Armor, Pet Magic Items, and Pet Enhancing Spells similar to the old Familiar Enhancers, or long Duration protective spells available to the Ranger, we could jack up Fluffy to something that wouldn't be one-hit-killed by monsters we routinely encounter at our level?   Tricking out your pet would probably be really fun actually. People dress up their pets, buy them bling and sweaters and paw socks and feed them nummies full of vitamins, etc. Cops even have body armor options for their Canines. A D&D analog would be great.   Spells Like Steel Fang/Claw/Talon - makes the fangs of your pet magically badass. enchanted Squirrel Guards for our pet birds.   Wait... wasn't He-Man a Beast Master?
#177 iserith Jun 25, 2015 10:06:46	shintashi wrote:
(Reply to #174) SleepsInTraffic	FFSAA wrote:
(Reply to #170) arnwolf666	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#180 Phorem Jun 25, 2015 13:16:52	1.  I like the "Dar" model beastmaster with the ferrets and birds and tiger and what not, but I think you can get pretty close with the RAW, only one of them needs to be the "companion", another could be a familiar obtained through a feat (I like ritual caster for ranger, makes me pictures Inidans making sand paintings on the ground), another could be a mount purchased well trained and befriended through many years of animal friendship/talks with animals/just good care and love, maybe even a pair of hunting dogs or something.  You can get a pretty good menagerie going without breaking any RAW.   2.  My wife reluctantly agreed to join a game I started for my kids and we are happy to have her.  SHe is more concerned with appearance and RP than optimization or combat effectiveness.  She wants to be an elven BM ranger, and she wants the companion to be a fox (primarily because it matches her hair color).  I am thinking she primarily wants to use it to scout and explore and not so much to bite ankles during a fight.  Should we find the best ways we can to incorporate the fox or try to push her to something less pretty and more ferocious?
#181 Wuzzard Jun 25, 2015 19:08:24	The only time I played a summoning class it was a 3E psion, and I guess 1E cleric, but I didn't normally play the cleric that way.  Anyhow, the summoning was awesome cool.  Yes, it did bog the game down a little, but I don't think it was a problem with the other players. The part they didn't like about my psion was it could easily nova all it had, at max level.  So I tried not playing it that way, but it was always tempting.
(Reply to #180) SleepsInTraffic	Phorem wrote:
(Reply to #176) Mechatarrasque	[quote="shintashi"]     Maybe if a Dragon Magazine had some Pet Armor, Pet Magic Items, and Pet Enhancing Spells similar to the old Familiar Enhancers, or long Duration protective spells available to the Ranger, we could jack up Fluffy to something that wouldn't be one-hit-killed by monsters we routinely encounter at our level?   While I am lazy (and thus would prefer the dragon magazine solution of setting prices), it is completely within the scope of 5e for characters to spend gp's on stuff like pet armor.  You probably have to negotiate a cost with the DM that is a higher than armor for a person (because blacksmiths are used to doing that).  Anywhere soldiers use warhounds, it shouldn't even have any extra expense (because blacksmiths should be used to doing that).  I am told a good DM is supposed to say "yes and this is what your character has to do" instead of "no", and this seems like a good place for that line of thought.  For pet magical items, I think potions baked into dog/cat treats would work, but that is a little more of a stretch (try giving medicine to a cat).  No argument on the pet enhancing spells.   Battlecat rules!!!  Speaking of BC, I notice he had fangs on his helmet, so maybe like BC and the critter in Brotherhood of the Wolf, you could also add weapons to the AC as well.
#184 Tfuture Jun 25, 2015 18:16:40	[quote="Mechatarrasque"] shintashi wrote:
#185 SleepsInTraffic Jun 25, 2015 18:32:25	So yeah fun fact about the flying dinosaur halfling build... It's a lancer that can move freely through combat. Nothing like a halfling swinging a d12 weapon while maintaining distance on enemies...
#186 Tfuture Jun 25, 2015 18:39:08	SleepsInTraffic wrote:
(Reply to #186) SleepsInTraffic	Tfuture wrote:
#188 iserith Jun 25, 2015 20:35:24	SleepsInTraffic wrote:
(Reply to #188) SleepsInTraffic	iserith wrote:
#190 iserith Jun 25, 2015 20:51:58	SleepsInTraffic wrote:
#191 SleepsInTraffic Jun 25, 2015 21:11:17	Nah my dm's usually run home spun settings where there is very little restriction on what exists within the world, with the express purpose of rarely telling players an outright no on character concepts. Though yes the idea hinges on dinosaurs existing in the setting, but I literally can't think of a dm I have that would say no to the idea, mostly because they would likely want to see it in action as much as I do.
#192 Tfuture Jun 25, 2015 21:41:41	iserith wrote:
#193 SleepsInTraffic Jun 25, 2015 21:51:39	Okay ditching the dino rider idea let's talk about the giant poisonous snake animal companion. 1 the halfling could still technically ride it, 2 it's attack does 1d4+4 damage and dc 11 con save vs 3d6 poison half on a pass. Especially cool off you are playing an aquatic game because the snake has a swim speed.
#194 lawrencehoy Jun 25, 2015 22:29:44	SleepsInTraffic wrote:
#195 LordCorwin Jun 26, 2015 8:23:22	My ranger's wolf died in a big battle but a few days later the DM had us encounter a displacer beast that was wounded. We killed it and then a little ways down found what had hurt it. A dead owlbear must have fought it protecting its cub. The DM let me take the cub as my new animal companion. That was so awesome. Too bad that campaign died out because I really liked that character.
(Reply to #195) SleepsInTraffic	LordCorwin wrote:
#197 LordCorwin Jun 26, 2015 8:33:38	He just used the stats for the Giant Badger because it seemed similar enough to what a baby owlbear migh be like.
(Reply to #197) SleepsInTraffic	LordCorwin wrote:
#199 LordCorwin Jun 26, 2015 11:00:36	Had we kept playing that campaign and as the cub began to grow past what could reasonably be considered a 1/4cr giant badger I was planning to release it back into the wild anyway. Raise it until it could fend for itself and let it go. So I didn't have to worry about breaking any rules for how powerful animal companions are supposed to be. Then find a new pet.
(Reply to #191) arnwolf666	SleepsInTraffic wrote:
#201 dmgorgon Jun 26, 2015 19:36:51	Jeremy Crawford ‏@JeremyECrawford  Jun 24
(Reply to #201) SleepsInTraffic	dmgorgon wrote:
#203 dmgorgon Jun 26, 2015 21:35:11	I totally agree that the action system needs to be rewritten.   hmm.. now here's a thought (I'll have to check this one), but  I wonder if a ranger / necro might opt to have his beast slain and animated for the bonus action command.   "Sorry Fluffy, but I'm sick and tired of you slowing me down.   As my undead thrawl you'll be less of a liability...."
(Reply to #203) AaronOfBarbaria	dmgorgon wrote:
#205 iserith Jun 27, 2015 6:11:09	After you have commanded your beast to attack, it does continue to attack - in the fiction. It doesn't stop attacking to lick itself. When you, as a player, want it to have a chance to reduce the enemy's hit points (and possibly apply conditions or the like) you spend an action.
(Reply to #205) SleepsInTraffic	iserith wrote:
#207 iserith Jun 27, 2015 7:53:05	SleepsInTraffic wrote:
#208 dmgorgon Jun 27, 2015 10:44:14	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#209 dmgorgon Jun 27, 2015 10:46:42	iserith wrote:
#210 iserith Jun 27, 2015 10:50:46	dmgorgon wrote:
#211 dmgorgon Jun 27, 2015 10:54:55	iserith wrote:
#212 iserith Jun 27, 2015 11:07:55	dmgorgon wrote:
#213 dmgorgon Jun 27, 2015 11:21:37	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #207) SleepsInTraffic	iserith wrote:
#215 iserith Jun 27, 2015 12:24:46	[quote="dmgorgon"]No there is a problem   You simply chose to fix the problem with adjudication.   I'd rather just call it a stupid rule, change it, and be done with it.       I'd rather spend my time adjudicating more important situations than those created by terrible rules that only exist for the sake of over balance.    IMO, if I don't need to adjudicate or fix the rules for such things when playing previous editions I shouldn't have to do it now. [/quote]   SleepsInTraffic wrote:
(Reply to #215) Satyrn	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #215) SleepsInTraffic	[quote="iserith"] dmgorgon wrote:
#218 Cyber-Dave Jun 27, 2015 13:25:30	dmgorgon wrote:
(Reply to #218) SleepsInTraffic	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#220 Cyber-Dave Jun 27, 2015 14:22:48	P.S. One final note, I think it is hilarious that many of the voices claiming that the beastmaster is underpowered in this thread are the same voices who claim that full spellcasters (wizard, cleric, druid, etc) are not overpowered in 3e. The beastmaster is underpowered, but it is nowhere near as underpowered compared to the other 5e classes as any non-spellcasting class (and I am including a few light spellcasting classes, such as the ranger and paladin, in this designation) is compared to a full-spellcaster in 3e.
#221 FFSAA Jun 27, 2015 14:41:44	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #206) Mechatarrasque	SleepsInTraffic wrote:
#223 Ghost_Gallus Jun 27, 2015 16:17:19	It's almost like the word action does not have a list of defined things it covers in the mechanics of the game or something...oh...wait...
#224 Cyber-Dave Jun 27, 2015 17:48:36	Or like the errata doeasn't clearly state: Ranger’s Companion (p. 93). Like any creature, the beast can spend Hit Dice during a short rest. If you are incapacitated or absent, the beast acts on its own, focusing on protecting you and itself. It never requires your command to use its reaction, such as when making an opportunity attack... oh, wait.    But whatever. I guess this is an episode of hyperbolic arguments will be hyperbolic and other tautologies. I am saying that as someone who DOES think that BM is underpowered (though it isn't nearly as bad as some people are making out, and it is still very playable).
#225 arnwolf666 Jun 27, 2015 19:01:42	Some people really think like a video game.
#226 SleepsInTraffic Jun 27, 2015 19:35:25	Yeah survivability on the beast isn't actually that terrible, think about it, give it death saving throws, and it can use hit die, and as the ranger you either have cure wounds or poultices, actually getting the thing dead is kind of hard. Also some of those companions can be crazy, like getting that medium snake that does 1d4+2 + (3d6 poison damage DC 11 con save for half) + my proficiency bonus on hit. at level five I can have that thing attack and I can attack for a d8+dex+2(likely 5) and a hand crossbow shot. Then at 7th level it can get two attacks. That thing is crazy it is medium sized and as a halfling you can use the thing as a mount (at least an aquatic one). Then, there is the dino rider. I would not call those weak builds. I will say the ranger takes some system mastery to get humming.
#227 dmgorgon Jun 27, 2015 20:07:51	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#228 SleepsInTraffic Jun 27, 2015 21:56:17	You can also go the wolf route and consistently knock enemies prone so you consistently have advantage. Go great weapon fighter always go for the bonus damage and get +2 to damage as well from your class features. Also you have all the utility of a wolf.
#229 iserith Jun 27, 2015 23:28:28	Satyrn wrote:
#230 SleepsInTraffic Jun 28, 2015 7:48:32	Yes changing the rules (allowing things the rules do not allow by not applying rules to a situation that do not adequately address, such as ignoring the movement restrictions of the current action economy rules in a chase, a.k.a. allowing a ranger and their beast to both dash at the same time) is house ruling. That is the absolute definition of house ruling. There's nothing wrong with house ruling, but don't try to put lipstick on a pig, and don't day that the rules aren't broken because you can house rule them out of existence. It's distracting from the actual discussion which is of the problems with beast master of which that is one. Yes we all get that we can ignore the rules when they break down, and house rule the game, but restating that does nothing to address the fact that the rules in this particular instance break down on a regular basis and could be written another way so that they no longer break down that often. Basically it is a waste of everyone's time and effort to even mention that we could just not apply the rules, our problem is that the rules as written don't work or make sense, sure we're could just ignore them regularly, nothing is stopping us from doing that, but I'd rather the rules worked well and I've suggested how to make that happen.
#231 iserith Jun 28, 2015 7:50:57	That's the problem with believing that the rules are more prescriptive than descriptive: Any perceived deviation is called "house ruling." The rules are like a toolbox. You use what you need at any given time to adjudicate a situation in a way that makes sense, is fair, is fun for everyone, and helps create an exciting, memorable story. I showed this quite well when adjudicating Mellored's situation of the ranger and panther dealing with the line of archers upthread. I looked at the situation, applied the best tools for the job, and built a compelling scene. That's what the DM does. The rules will not do that for you. Treating the rules too prescriptively in an RPG is a user error.
#232 Thoughts_My_Aim Jun 28, 2015 7:59:11	It is not houseruling to apply the rules only in those situations when the rules actually apply.   If the game rules as printed had to be applied strictly to every event that took place in the game-world, the game would be utterly unplayable. No NPC - even one on the other side of the world from the player characters - would be able to take any action without the actual human DM at the table rolling a D20 for them. Nothing could happen without explicit DM narration mediated through the game mechanics. Either every session would be occupied with the DM rolling for the actions of NPCs, or the players would arrive at every new location to find that everybody had starved to death, since the DM hadn't had them make skill checks to farm or gather food.
#233 dmgorgon Jun 28, 2015 18:49:24	iserith wrote:
#234 dmgorgon Jun 28, 2015 19:12:30	Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
#235 Delazar78 Jun 29, 2015 12:21:35	iserith wrote:
#236 Thoughts_My_Aim Jun 29, 2015 12:45:51	dmgorgon wrote:
#237 FFSAA Jun 29, 2015 15:31:10	iserith wrote:
#238 FFSAA Jun 29, 2015 15:35:53	SleepsInTraffic wrote:
#239 iserith Jun 29, 2015 15:51:47	FFSAA wrote:
(Reply to #238) SleepsInTraffic	FFSAA wrote:
#241 ChrisCarlson Jun 30, 2015 6:22:20	FFSAA wrote:
#242 ModusPonens Jun 30, 2015 7:06:26	I give humanoid enemies death saves...   Wait, you're not doing that?    Holy crap, people. Do that. Nothing says "loving" like popping a 20 on a death save, especially with acolytes.
#243 iserith Jun 30, 2015 8:06:13	Delazar78 wrote: