One thing I think a lot of people forget is that you can equip your beast companion. A big difference between the PHB companion and the Tasha's companion is how the AC is calculated. Equipping the Tasha's companion with armor would overwrite its AC with a different AC calculation, but the PHB companion gets a bonus to its AC. So a giant crab companion equipped with a Belt of Giant Strength and plate barding would be a pretty effective tank with its ability to grapple multiple targets and its 30ft blindsight.
Is the Tasha's companion better? In combat, generally yes. But the PHB companion can be good if you have access to good equipment, are creative, or use it for role play and exploration rather than combat.
But that's a bit situational, isn't it? I mean, being able to equip your creature with a magic item is like a letter to Santa Claus.
On the other hand it seems to me that you are arguing that the beast companion is better than the primal companion for exploration and roleplaying. Why's that? What reason is there to argue that? I don't see what mechanical advantage the beast companion has that makes it a better scout (unless you mean you can choose a specific creature). Regarding the roleplay, there is no mechanic that is worth. It depends on how the player handles it. So I don't see why it's going to be superior in that regard.
And finally, D&D is a game focused on combat. I think at this point it's silly to have to remember that. Can you play games focused on something else? Of course, as a child I also played soccer with my sister's volleyball. But by design that ball was better for playing volleyball. So, in a game focused on combat, it is normal that an archetype (subclass in this case) that makes you fight worse is considered bad.
THis is what I was thinking....oddly I think that the PHB beast has LESS it can do with its action as it has a limited actions it can take as it can only take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, or Help action. I am assuming it can do more? but I am not sure....
This is easy to disprove. Reading by gaslamp again I see.
From monster manual: When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action, as described in the Player’s Handbook.
The players Handbook says the option presented for pc's also apply for monsters (including actions and death saves)
Now familiar and tasha's have a specific exception for attacking or being "in combat" defaulted to dodging, respectively. But the phb must must follow comands to the best of its abilities. There's no restrictions on hide or searching (if commanded.)
One thing I think a lot of people forget is that you can equip your beast companion. A big difference between the PHB companion and the Tasha's companion is how the AC is calculated. Equipping the Tasha's companion with armor would overwrite its AC with a different AC calculation, but the PHB companion gets a bonus to its AC. So a giant crab companion equipped with a Belt of Giant Strength and plate barding would be a pretty effective tank with its ability to grapple multiple targets and its 30ft blindsight.
Is the Tasha's companion better? In combat, generally yes. But the PHB companion can be good if you have access to good equipment, are creative, or use it for role play and exploration rather than combat.
But that's a bit situational, isn't it? I mean, being able to equip your creature with a magic item is like a letter to Santa Claus.
On the other hand it seems to me that you are arguing that the beast companion is better than the primal companion for exploration and roleplaying. Why's that? What reason is there to argue that? I don't see what mechanical advantage the beast companion has that makes it a better scout (unless you mean you can choose a specific creature). Regarding the roleplay, there is no mechanic that is worth. It depends on how the player handles it. So I don't see why it's going to be superior in that regard.
And finally, D&D is a game focused on combat. I think at this point it's silly to have to remember that. Can you play games focused on something else? Of course, as a child I also played soccer with my sister's volleyball. But by design that ball was better for playing volleyball. So, in a game focused on combat, it is normal that an archetype (subclass in this case) that makes you fight worse is considered bad.
Equipment is only one way of dealing with the survivability "issue." Healing, resurrections, Survivability tactics, all allow for Smart response to the situations at hand.
But an artificer will go out of their way to get an "all purpose tool" to make his features better and a beastmaster should at least consider doing the same. I rarely ask for barding because I usually get high enough ac to function without. Even a tasha's beast should consider what items your dm will allow. But remember phb adds ac. tasha's replaces Ac.
I never go without my subclass features as a beastmaster because I always have vials of harvested poison so I can either have it sit out for a turn in safety or use it while waiting to bond a new one. Not for everybody... sure but it is an option.
Another great thing is "always have spare animals." You need them for animal messenger, beast sense, trap bait, ect. so why not take ones that can be bonded as if the need arises. A hawk, a mastif, A mule. A even a basic spider has decent utility and function and supposedly you are never more than 6 yards from a spider on land and sometimes sea(on earth). surely you can find a creature in the environment you are in that has use for its current environment.
One thing I think a lot of people forget is that you can equip your beast companion. A big difference between the PHB companion and the Tasha's companion is how the AC is calculated. Equipping the Tasha's companion with armor would overwrite its AC with a different AC calculation, but the PHB companion gets a bonus to its AC. So a giant crab companion equipped with a Belt of Giant Strength and plate barding would be a pretty effective tank with its ability to grapple multiple targets and its 30ft blindsight.
Is the Tasha's companion better? In combat, generally yes. But the PHB companion can be good if you have access to good equipment, are creative, or use it for role play and exploration rather than combat.
But that's a bit situational, isn't it? I mean, being able to equip your creature with a magic item is like a letter to Santa Claus.
On the other hand it seems to me that you are arguing that the beast companion is better than the primal companion for exploration and roleplaying. Why's that? What reason is there to argue that? I don't see what mechanical advantage the beast companion has that makes it a better scout (unless you mean you can choose a specific creature). Regarding the roleplay, there is no mechanic that is worth. It depends on how the player handles it. So I don't see why it's going to be superior in that regard.
And finally, D&D is a game focused on combat. I think at this point it's silly to have to remember that. Can you play games focused on something else? Of course, as a child I also played soccer with my sister's volleyball. But by design that ball was better for playing volleyball. So, in a game focused on combat, it is normal that an archetype (subclass in this case) that makes you fight worse is considered bad.
THis is what I was thinking....oddly I think that the PHB beast has LESS it can do with its action as it has a limited actions it can take as it can only take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, or Help action. I am assuming it can do more? but I am not sure....
This is easy to disprove. Reading by gaslamp again I see.
From monster manual: When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action, as described in the Player’s Handbook.
The players Handbook says the option presented for pc's also apply for monsters (including actions and death saves)
Now familiar and tasha's have a specific exception for attacking or being "in combat" defaulted to dodging, respectively. But the phb must must follow comands to the best of its abilities. There's no restrictions on hide or searching (if commanded.)
Well they are limited to what they can do in combat at least. Overall its definitely not more versatile than Tashas though.
One thing I think a lot of people forget is that you can equip your beast companion. A big difference between the PHB companion and the Tasha's companion is how the AC is calculated. Equipping the Tasha's companion with armor would overwrite its AC with a different AC calculation, but the PHB companion gets a bonus to its AC. So a giant crab companion equipped with a Belt of Giant Strength and plate barding would be a pretty effective tank with its ability to grapple multiple targets and its 30ft blindsight.
Is the Tasha's companion better? In combat, generally yes. But the PHB companion can be good if you have access to good equipment, are creative, or use it for role play and exploration rather than combat.
But that's a bit situational, isn't it? I mean, being able to equip your creature with a magic item is like a letter to Santa Claus.
On the other hand it seems to me that you are arguing that the beast companion is better than the primal companion for exploration and roleplaying. Why's that? What reason is there to argue that? I don't see what mechanical advantage the beast companion has that makes it a better scout (unless you mean you can choose a specific creature). Regarding the roleplay, there is no mechanic that is worth. It depends on how the player handles it. So I don't see why it's going to be superior in that regard.
And finally, D&D is a game focused on combat. I think at this point it's silly to have to remember that. Can you play games focused on something else? Of course, as a child I also played soccer with my sister's volleyball. But by design that ball was better for playing volleyball. So, in a game focused on combat, it is normal that an archetype (subclass in this case) that makes you fight worse is considered bad.
Equipment is only one way of dealing with the survivability "issue." Healing, resurrections, Survivability tactics, all allow for Smart response to the situations at hand.
But an artificer will go out of their way to get an "all purpose tool" to make his features better and a beastmaster should at least consider doing the same. I rarely ask for barding because I usually get high enough ac to function without. Even a tasha's beast should consider what items your dm will allow. But remember phb adds ac. tasha's replaces Ac.
I never go without my subclass features as a beastmaster because I always have vials of harvested poison so I can either have it sit out for a turn in safety or use it while waiting to bond a new one. Not for everybody... sure but it is an option.
Another great thing is "always have spare animals." You need them for animal messenger, beast sense, trap bait, ect. so why not take ones that can be bonded as if the need arises. A hawk, a mastif, A mule. A even a basic spider has decent utility and function and supposedly you are never more than 6 yards from a spider on land and sometimes sea(on earth). surely you can find a creature in the environment you are in that has use for its current environment.
So you either:
1. Keep your beast back a lot of the time to keep it safe
2. Not have the beast you want because the one you wanted died and you are not in the right biome to get it back.
One is just lame IMO that you have to play pretty conservative which is not really fun for a game that does rely a lot on combat and your effectiveness there in is highly dependent on your creature which you do not want to die so you can't use it to its potential.
Two is bad for a lot of reasons....if I am playing a class I want to have a choice on what my class and character look like. If envisioned my beast as a wolf and mechanically I build around that...to have to settle for a mule is uh....terrible IMO.
On a side note: do you know what a false dichotomy is?
Either way, You play the game and proceed appropriately.
Play tactically, understand the field, understand the enemy, understand your allies.
Just throwing yourself at the situation and wanting to "Leroy Jenkins" is for other classes.
The same spell slot for Resurrection of tasha's could get you more with just good berry or a clerics sanctuary or healing (because it's a smaller cost for clerics) tasha's beast being dead for one turn still is the same action economy loss as holding back for one turn.
If tasha's pet is dead, you either messed up or the dice weren't in your favor.
Some people want to dual welding hand crossbows but they can't. That doesn't mean it's a bad feat. Same with phb companions, there's lots you can do, so don't wine about what you can't (when ranking it.)
There's a huge difference between "I don't like it" and "it's faulty".
On a side note: do you know what a false dichotomy is?
Either way, You play the game and proceed appropriately.
Play tactically, understand the field, understand the enemy, understand your allies.
Just throwing yourself at the situation and wanting to "Leroy Jenkins" is for other classes.
The same spell slot for Resurrection of tasha's could get you more with just good berry or a clerics sanctuary or healing (because it's a smaller cost for clerics) tasha's beast being dead for one turn still is the same action economy loss as holding back for one turn.
If tasha's pet is dead, you either messed up or the dice weren't in your favor.
Some people want to dual welding hand crossbows but they can't. That doesn't mean it's a bad feat. Same with phb companions, there's lots you can do, so don't wine about what you can't (when ranking it.)
There's a huge difference between "I don't like it" and "it's faulty".
Yes and the PHB Beastmaster is definitely "Faulty" and its pretty universally recognized.
On a side note: do you know what a false dichotomy is?
Either way, You play the game and proceed appropriately.
Play tactically, understand the field, understand the enemy, understand your allies.
Just throwing yourself at the situation and wanting to "Leroy Jenkins" is for other classes.
The same spell slot for Resurrection of tasha's could get you more with just good berry or a clerics sanctuary or healing (because it's a smaller cost for clerics) tasha's beast being dead for one turn still is the same action economy loss as holding back for one turn.
If tasha's pet is dead, you either messed up or the dice weren't in your favor.
Some people want to dual welding hand crossbows but they can't. That doesn't mean it's a bad feat. Same with phb companions, there's lots you can do, so don't wine about what you can't (when ranking it.)
There's a huge difference between "I don't like it" and "it's faulty".
Yes and the PHB Beastmaster is definitely "Faulty" and its pretty universally recognized.
It's a failed subclass, that's why they made a new one.
I still have the general suspension that during initial design phase they divided up the existing phb subclasses out of base class due to not having enough time to finish it. That and they amount of design caution seemed to vary a lot class to class.
I still have the general suspension that during initial design phase they divided up the existing phb subclasses out of base class due to not having enough time to finish it. That and they amount of design caution seemed to vary a lot class to class.
It's definitely noticable the classes that got better information or feels for what the actual day would look like.
Exploration was mostly dumped so abilities around that tend to be not used or boring.
I think they thought downtime would be more of a thing (considering how absurdly long it takes to craft anything)
But most groups tend to not have a lot in my experience.
Again blaming the exploration pillar or the base class or individual spells (looking at you conjure animals haters) is not the same as a bad subclass.
But some people use opinions on other matters to obfuscate the benefit or reinforce negative opinions without actual dives into the materials.
Does phb beastmaster require a deep dive? Yes. Does it require advanced tactics/teamwork? Yes are you required to make trade offs both short and long term?yes
Are there weaknesses? Yes but recovering still takes less effort than replacing a wizards spell book. They both can plan ahead and play smart to make it an interesting part of the character.
Are there phb beastmaster optimized builds an playstyles that will not work with tasha's instead? Yes. (See all 4 listed points + more.)
Are there optimized builds that can only use tasha's? Yes.
We currently have both tasha's and phb and good for having your preference. But bad on anyone who remains willing ignorant.
Again blaming the exploration pillar or the base class or individual spells (looking at you conjure animals haters) is not the same as a bad subclass.
But some people use opinions on other matters to obfuscate the benefit or reinforce negative opinions without actual dives into the materials.
Does phb beastmaster require a deep dive? Yes. Does it require advanced tactics/teamwork? Yes are you required to make trade offs both short and long term?yes
Are there weaknesses? Yes but recovering still takes less effort than replacing a wizards spell book. They both can plan ahead and play smart to make it an interesting part of the character.
Are there phb beastmaster optimized builds an playstyles that will not work with tasha's instead? Yes. (See all 4 listed points + more.)
Are there optimized builds that can only use tasha's? Yes.
We currently have both tasha's and phb and good for having your preference. But bad on anyone who remains willing ignorant.
A subclass that requires a lot of work to be workable is bad design... Not sure how else to spin that.
It's a subclass that is a terrible trap for new players who don't know better about the abundant weaknesses of the subclass to avoid them.
Even in an unoptimized game the downsides are very apparent and it's reflected in the general consensus of the subclass.
Experienced players with good knowledge of the system can make it workable... But it's a trap for anyone else.
Are you saying that the same person is able to become a better Beast Master with the PHB than with Tasha's? Because if not, this is pointless arguing.
It's obvious that an experienced player with knowledge of the rules will be able to make a better character, even with a bad subclass, than a player who doesn't know the game. But it is also very likely that the experienced and knowledgeable player, if they have to make a Beast Master, will make Tasha's. The other option is to do the PHB as a challenge or something like that.
Yes a good character builder and player can have unique features and power with the phb.
There are plenty of optimized roles that only a phb beastmaster can do.
Phb rangers allow pets and dumping wisdom. Tasha's can't.( many rager spells aren't even casting dependent)
Phb rangers allow ranged blindsight builds that Tasha's can't.
phb rangers allow poison builds that Tasha's can't
Phb rangers allow tactics switching after "failure" to a degree tasha's can't.
And more...
Tasha's also has a few builds phb can't but they appeal to different styles of play. (Like wisdom only builds.)
But more importantly a new player can easily hold their own if they just stop having a pissing contest with themselves over action economy and just keep moving forward naratively instead of trying to force a fantasy separate from the game. But some bad faith people say it's bad and poison the experience for others without even really thinking about it.
Just because you can do different things with the PHB's best master doesn't mean those things are better than the primal companion. Surely the list of Ranger's companion is wider. No matter. All three primal companions are better than any of those.
Is it better to make poison-type attacks than to be able to use your partner with a bonus action, for example?
And the last part of your message is just a straw man. How you play your beast master narratively has nothing to do with whether you play the PHB or Tasha. The differences are mechanical, and that's what we're talking about here.
But more importantly a new player can easily hold their own if they just stop having a pissing contest with themselves over action economy and just keep moving forward naratively instead of trying to force a fantasy separate from the game. But some bad faith people say it's bad and poison the experience for others without even really thinking about it.
"You can just not do combat" is a really weird argument when talking about the strength/balance of a subclass in a combat focussed system lol
It's also very counter productive to new players as the builds you mention require very specific circumstances and DMs being flexible with the rules. A creature might not like you constantly milking it for poison for example.
Overall it's weird to try to defend a subclass that has been pretty universally panned and requires niche applications to be relevant at all at this point.
Honestly if you ignore the possible poison milking, I don't really get why you would ever take PHB over Tasha's.
If I were a ranger, I want a companion that I'm not having to babysit to be effective. Tasha lets you have a companion who you can easily revive with a 1st level spell slot (Which honestly should have just been an option as well, since it's such a good QoL that actually fixes at least some of the issues), and change your companion out for different purposes without having to kill the original.
Need to scout an area out? Get sky form and have it fly around for the day. Going underground or something underwater? Then you can take land or sea forms. If you want blindsight, you can take the fighting style still.
Can the PHB version be used? Sure, but it's quite punishing if you mess up so it isn't good for new players. It sucks for you to invest a bunch of characterization in having an animal companion tied to your backstory, only for it to die easily in a few rounds.
Crying about sharing attacks is not reflective of a bad feature. Plain and simple. The damage stats are the players regardless of if it's the beast or the player. As long as the ranger team is holding their weight (combat wise), crying that they didn't both get to attack is just what I said "a pissing contest with yourself"
That sharing attacks/action economy is the number 1 complaint but they often still hold damage numbers or combat value as compared to a person with the same experience building another class or subclass.
Number 2 is but I don't wanna use optimal beasts. Ok fine, but don't call it broken. Even suboptimal beast have a way to affect combat for the party benefit. A ranger with "forced" cr zero pets can still play optimal and prevent party damage, do field control, assist with damage and prevent or assist with creating surprise rounds. Over reach is a player issue not a subclass issue.
Number 3 is "survivability and replacement"have many different methods of survivability have been presented. Healing, equipment,tactics,party teamwork. The trade off becomes high restrictions but high rewards.
I have at least presented methods of dealing with each complaint. You can call them "staw man arguments" but that doesn't make it true. Just like me saying "all your complaints lead to either petty players or petty dms" the truth isn't in the statements we make but the real world practice. (Because hypocrisy and trolling exist)
Really world data shows phb is not universally bad. Phb beastmaster holds a decent place for fuction and damage in a party.
Like I said tashas filled a gap but there are reasons phb a important part of the "player ecosystem "
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is easy to disprove. Reading by gaslamp again I see.
From monster manual: When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action, as described in the Player’s Handbook.
The players Handbook says the option presented for pc's also apply for monsters (including actions and death saves)
Now familiar and tasha's have a specific exception for attacking or being "in combat" defaulted to dodging, respectively. But the phb must must follow comands to the best of its abilities. There's no restrictions on hide or searching (if commanded.)
Equipment is only one way of dealing with the survivability "issue." Healing, resurrections, Survivability tactics, all allow for Smart response to the situations at hand.
But an artificer will go out of their way to get an "all purpose tool" to make his features better and a beastmaster should at least consider doing the same. I rarely ask for barding because I usually get high enough ac to function without. Even a tasha's beast should consider what items your dm will allow. But remember phb adds ac. tasha's replaces Ac.
I never go without my subclass features as a beastmaster because I always have vials of harvested poison so I can either have it sit out for a turn in safety or use it while waiting to bond a new one. Not for everybody... sure but it is an option.
Another great thing is "always have spare animals." You need them for animal messenger, beast sense, trap bait, ect. so why not take ones that can be bonded as if the need arises. A hawk, a mastif, A mule. A even a basic spider has decent utility and function and supposedly you are never more than 6 yards from a spider on land and sometimes sea(on earth). surely you can find a creature in the environment you are in that has use for its current environment.
Well they are limited to what they can do in combat at least. Overall its definitely not more versatile than Tashas though.
So you either:
1. Keep your beast back a lot of the time to keep it safe
2. Not have the beast you want because the one you wanted died and you are not in the right biome to get it back.
One is just lame IMO that you have to play pretty conservative which is not really fun for a game that does rely a lot on combat and your effectiveness there in is highly dependent on your creature which you do not want to die so you can't use it to its potential.
Two is bad for a lot of reasons....if I am playing a class I want to have a choice on what my class and character look like. If envisioned my beast as a wolf and mechanically I build around that...to have to settle for a mule is uh....terrible IMO.
On a side note: do you know what a false dichotomy is?
Either way, You play the game and proceed appropriately.
Play tactically, understand the field, understand the enemy, understand your allies.
Just throwing yourself at the situation and wanting to "Leroy Jenkins" is for other classes.
The same spell slot for Resurrection of tasha's could get you more with just good berry or a clerics sanctuary or healing (because it's a smaller cost for clerics) tasha's beast being dead for one turn still is the same action economy loss as holding back for one turn.
If tasha's pet is dead, you either messed up or the dice weren't in your favor.
Some people want to dual welding hand crossbows but they can't. That doesn't mean it's a bad feat. Same with phb companions, there's lots you can do, so don't wine about what you can't (when ranking it.)
There's a huge difference between "I don't like it" and "it's faulty".
Yes and the PHB Beastmaster is definitely "Faulty" and its pretty universally recognized.
It's a failed subclass, that's why they made a new one.
I still have the general suspension that during initial design phase they divided up the existing phb subclasses out of base class due to not having enough time to finish it. That and they amount of design caution seemed to vary a lot class to class.
It's definitely noticable the classes that got better information or feels for what the actual day would look like.
Exploration was mostly dumped so abilities around that tend to be not used or boring.
I think they thought downtime would be more of a thing (considering how absurdly long it takes to craft anything)
But most groups tend to not have a lot in my experience.
It makes me wonder if they are going to address those factor of the game in the 2024 updates.
Again blaming the exploration pillar or the base class or individual spells (looking at you conjure animals haters) is not the same as a bad subclass.
But some people use opinions on other matters to obfuscate the benefit or reinforce negative opinions without actual dives into the materials.
Does phb beastmaster require a deep dive? Yes. Does it require advanced tactics/teamwork? Yes are you required to make trade offs both short and long term?yes
Are there weaknesses? Yes but recovering still takes less effort than replacing a wizards spell book. They both can plan ahead and play smart to make it an interesting part of the character.
Are there phb beastmaster optimized builds an playstyles that will not work with tasha's instead? Yes. (See all 4 listed points + more.)
Are there optimized builds that can only use tasha's? Yes.
We currently have both tasha's and phb and good for having your preference. But bad on anyone who remains willing ignorant.
A subclass that requires a lot of work to be workable is bad design... Not sure how else to spin that.
It's a subclass that is a terrible trap for new players who don't know better about the abundant weaknesses of the subclass to avoid them.
Even in an unoptimized game the downsides are very apparent and it's reflected in the general consensus of the subclass.
Experienced players with good knowledge of the system can make it workable... But it's a trap for anyone else.
Are you saying that the same person is able to become a better Beast Master with the PHB than with Tasha's? Because if not, this is pointless arguing.
It's obvious that an experienced player with knowledge of the rules will be able to make a better character, even with a bad subclass, than a player who doesn't know the game. But it is also very likely that the experienced and knowledgeable player, if they have to make a Beast Master, will make Tasha's. The other option is to do the PHB as a challenge or something like that.
Yes a good character builder and player can have unique features and power with the phb.
There are plenty of optimized roles that only a phb beastmaster can do.
Phb rangers allow pets and dumping wisdom. Tasha's can't.( many rager spells aren't even casting dependent)
Phb rangers allow ranged blindsight builds that Tasha's can't.
phb rangers allow poison builds that Tasha's can't
Phb rangers allow tactics switching after "failure" to a degree tasha's can't.
And more...
Tasha's also has a few builds phb can't but they appeal to different styles of play. (Like wisdom only builds.)
But more importantly a new player can easily hold their own if they just stop having a pissing contest with themselves over action economy and just keep moving forward naratively instead of trying to force a fantasy separate from the game. But some bad faith people say it's bad and poison the experience for others without even really thinking about it.
Just because you can do different things with the PHB's best master doesn't mean those things are better than the primal companion. Surely the list of Ranger's companion is wider. No matter. All three primal companions are better than any of those.
Is it better to make poison-type attacks than to be able to use your partner with a bonus action, for example?
And the last part of your message is just a straw man. How you play your beast master narratively has nothing to do with whether you play the PHB or Tasha. The differences are mechanical, and that's what we're talking about here.
It's also very counter productive to new players as the builds you mention require very specific circumstances and DMs being flexible with the rules. A creature might not like you constantly milking it for poison for example.
Overall it's weird to try to defend a subclass that has been pretty universally panned and requires niche applications to be relevant at all at this point.
Honestly if you ignore the possible poison milking, I don't really get why you would ever take PHB over Tasha's.
If I were a ranger, I want a companion that I'm not having to babysit to be effective. Tasha lets you have a companion who you can easily revive with a 1st level spell slot (Which honestly should have just been an option as well, since it's such a good QoL that actually fixes at least some of the issues), and change your companion out for different purposes without having to kill the original.
Need to scout an area out? Get sky form and have it fly around for the day. Going underground or something underwater? Then you can take land or sea forms. If you want blindsight, you can take the fighting style still.
Can the PHB version be used? Sure, but it's quite punishing if you mess up so it isn't good for new players. It sucks for you to invest a bunch of characterization in having an animal companion tied to your backstory, only for it to die easily in a few rounds.
At no point was I suggesting "don't do combat."
Crying about sharing attacks is not reflective of a bad feature. Plain and simple. The damage stats are the players regardless of if it's the beast or the player. As long as the ranger team is holding their weight (combat wise), crying that they didn't both get to attack is just what I said "a pissing contest with yourself"
That sharing attacks/action economy is the number 1 complaint but they often still hold damage numbers or combat value as compared to a person with the same experience building another class or subclass.
Number 2 is but I don't wanna use optimal beasts. Ok fine, but don't call it broken. Even suboptimal beast have a way to affect combat for the party benefit. A ranger with "forced" cr zero pets can still play optimal and prevent party damage, do field control, assist with damage and prevent or assist with creating surprise rounds. Over reach is a player issue not a subclass issue.
Number 3 is "survivability and replacement"have many different methods of survivability have been presented. Healing, equipment,tactics,party teamwork. The trade off becomes high restrictions but high rewards.
I have at least presented methods of dealing with each complaint. You can call them "staw man arguments" but that doesn't make it true. Just like me saying "all your complaints lead to either petty players or petty dms" the truth isn't in the statements we make but the real world practice. (Because hypocrisy and trolling exist)
Really world data shows phb is not universally bad. Phb beastmaster holds a decent place for fuction and damage in a party.
Like I said tashas filled a gap but there are reasons phb a important part of the "player ecosystem "