Summoning vs. Animating vs. Pet vs. the Help Action.
Discuss. :-P
So, store bought pet vs. class feature companion should be another point of contention?
You can buy a whole passel of mastiffs for 25 gp each, which all get their own initiative and action, or you can dedicate your class selection and archetype to get a single pet that uses up your action to attack once.
Hmmm....
I haven't played many modules, none specifically for 5th Edition, so I haven't really dealt with that. We're playing in a conversion of Rise of the Rune Lords to 5th Edition. At one point, a bunch of rangers and scouts allied with us against some ogres and giants, but due to our somewhat unwise decision to attack them en masse, they only survived about half an hour of real time at our table.
But I've been reading Bookrat's journal of his players' adventures in "Out of the Abyss" and it seems like the party has lots and lots of NPCs adventuring with them. Is that common to many of the WotC modules for 5th Edition?
Prior to our conversion to 5th Edition, we were playing in a PF campaign with just 3 PCs. The GM gave each PC a "henchman," an NPC warrior. Technically, they didn't work for the PCs, but they were controlled by the players. It was a grognardy way to bolster the party without complicating play too much. Each had their own initiative and own personality (one was a pyromaniac, one was a ruthless survivor, etc.), so they were (almost) fully fleshed-out characters, but really simple to run. Mine was the ruthless survivor. He used a heavy crossbow, so every other turn he was re-loading, which really made his turns go by quickly. He eventually graduated to PC level (warrior 3/ranger 1), but after a nigh-TPK, we switched to RotRL and never looked back.
|
Out of the Abyss is chock full of NPCs and pets, and even a shield golem! I don't own Curse of Strahd or Princes of the Apocalypse, but the first adventure path (Rise of Tiamat) wasn't as thick with people and pets. Still, the fact that Out of the Abyss was that way, even if only once, is a tacit nod to that sort of playstyle, and the loose nature of action economy outside the bounds of class balance.
I mean, if you aren't buying gold, but some axe beak eggs or trained elephants, and see where that action economy gets you.
Wow. A pet shield golem???
I think OotA is trying to be very story-based, even if it is also very sandboxy, so they're throwing lots of NPCs at you for that.
But I'm making a ton of assumptions. I haven't played or even read the adventure, just a little bit about it.
One of my player got a figurine of wondrous power, making that character a better beastmaster than a beastmaster ranger :(
Do you HAVE a beastmaster ranger? Have you seen one in play?
Do you HAVE a beastmaster ranger? Have you seen one in play?
Yes, that's my son's favourite archetype... and my daughter's... and my other son's.
I haven't seen a beastmaster played by someone who truly masters the game's mechanics however.
|
Do you HAVE a beastmaster ranger? Have you seen one in play?Yes, that's my son's favourite archetype... and my daughter's... and my other son's.
I haven't seen a beastmaster played by someone who truly master the game's mechanics however.
I hear tell of Beastmasters with impressive damage output that makes the most of the pet (from Adventurer's League too, so assuming RAW). I've no idea how you'd do it, mind you.
Is there a share spell ability that works with hunter's mark?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Out of the Abyss is the only one of the modules designed to have that many NPCs traveling with you.
Given that, I tend to play characters who have their own retinue. Once my characters get money, they hire retainers, wagon drivers, wagon guards, squires, guard dogs, etc, just to travel around with them. It's pretty rare for me to play a character that doesn't have at least 2-3 NPCs traveling with him. Usually I don't do that in PBP games, just because it slows down games in that format. I typically do this because as an adventurer I'm prone to go underground or have to leave my horses/wagons behind, and I want there to be a retinue of people to keep my stuff safe while I'm dungeoneering.
For 5e specifically, the only non-PBP game I'm in, I'm playing a beastmaster ranger. It's a solid class that has decent damage, but if you're going for a DPR build, Hunter is better. The BM specializes in crowd control and battlefield control. Being able to be in two different places at once and knowing that my companion will do what I want it to do (instead of translating through the GM) is big for me. Since I tend to play characters with lots of companions, usually the GM needs to decide what that character will do; I can make requests or even give an order, but ultimately it's up to the GM. For the beastmaster, it's up to me. If people ignore that for other types of companions, then it's no wonder they think the BM is weaker.
I haven't looked at the figurines or animated equipment yet, but at least compared to a familiar or the find steed spell, the BM companion is better. Familiars can't attack unless you're a warlock, and even then you have to give up your action. The find steed spell can probably attack if you're not mounted, but it doesn't grow in power/HP or gain the proficiency bonus of the BM. It's not as bad as people make it out to be, especially if you use it for what it's designed to be used for - battle field control. The only thing I'd change with the class mechanics is for when you get extra attack, if you could sacrifice one of your attacks for the beast to attack instead of using an action for the beast to attack and you get an extra attack with it. This subtle difference would make it so you could two-Weapon fight if you wanted to.
Neat! I never thought of the Beastmaster as crowd control. Something to look into.