There are still perfectly valid reasons to use the PHB beast instead of the Tasha's one. This helps explain some of of the reasons. You can even take the PHB beast and the Tashas upgrades to Natural explorer and Favored enemy.
Any attempt to dispel the original Beastmaster hate is a good thing.
There are still perfectly valid reasons to use the PHB beast instead of the Tasha's one. This helps explain some of of the reasons. You can even take the PHB beast and the Tashas upgrades to Natural explorer and Favored enemy.
Any attempt to dispel the original Beastmaster hate is a good thing.
I agree 100%.
The Tasha’s variant is “easier” to run, much more combat focused, and less heartbreaking if you are playing that way. The PHB has amazing out if combat utility and flexibility, fun beast designing options between you and your dungeon master, and keeps up in the DPR department with each other subclass.
When I go back and read about animal companions for the 4E ranger, from the martial power book, it ran similar to the 5E PHB version and people complained about it then too. When I read about the 3.0/3.5 ranger and druid animal companion it ran totally different as a scaling beast that acted on it’s own, and seemed to be regarded as “VERY powerful” by most.
Since 4E and up-to before Tasha’s variant the beast was NOT considered or expected to be played as a weapon or even a weapon replacement for the ranger. It could attack on command, especially if you needed/wanted the option, the reach, or rider effect the beast provided, like grapple, poison, knock down, etc., but attacks of opportunity, positioning on the battlefield, absorbing and/or deflecting enemy attacks, providing cover for the ranger, and any and all exploration, perception, role play, utility support it added was the function of the beast.
I understand most tables look for damage output and are more combat focused, and so I understand the need/want for something like Tasha’s variant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is a great podcast from several years back talking about the beast master ranger subclass from the Player’s Handbook.
The Tome Show | Round Table 121 - Beast Master and Murders & Acquisitions on Podbean
https://www.podbean.com/ei/pb-52cvy-5fab44
I've actually listened to this multiple times, its great though not so relevant these days if you are using Tasha's.
There are still perfectly valid reasons to use the PHB beast instead of the Tasha's one. This helps explain some of of the reasons. You can even take the PHB beast and the Tashas upgrades to Natural explorer and Favored enemy.
Any attempt to dispel the original Beastmaster hate is a good thing.
I agree 100%.
The Tasha’s variant is “easier” to run, much more combat focused, and less heartbreaking if you are playing that way. The PHB has amazing out if combat utility and flexibility, fun beast designing options between you and your dungeon master, and keeps up in the DPR department with each other subclass.
When I go back and read about animal companions for the 4E ranger, from the martial power book, it ran similar to the 5E PHB version and people complained about it then too. When I read about the 3.0/3.5 ranger and druid animal companion it ran totally different as a scaling beast that acted on it’s own, and seemed to be regarded as “VERY powerful” by most.
Since 4E and up-to before Tasha’s variant the beast was NOT considered or expected to be played as a weapon or even a weapon replacement for the ranger. It could attack on command, especially if you needed/wanted the option, the reach, or rider effect the beast provided, like grapple, poison, knock down, etc., but attacks of opportunity, positioning on the battlefield, absorbing and/or deflecting enemy attacks, providing cover for the ranger, and any and all exploration, perception, role play, utility support it added was the function of the beast.
I understand most tables look for damage output and are more combat focused, and so I understand the need/want for something like Tasha’s variant.