Epic boons are just one example. Cause of strahd has at least 2 types of boons. Magical tattoos, manual books(yes there are ways to let a beast read) dm or campaign specific boons like in AL. Ravinia symic mutation. Training. Devine blessings. Earned titles. Gone just for switching from beast of the land to sea.
I am seriously beginning to think you never play any fun adventures.
Also,If you complain about a ranger using his own money for healing and Resurrection I will report you to PETA. 😉 you sure like to find any excuse to complain don't you.
A Ranger's spell slot is a valuable resource most of the time affecting whole encounters or making combat turning choices. selfishly letting either companion die is a waste and planning on tasha's dieing is just silly and out of character for a beastmaster.
I just point out facts when they are presented.
Overall all of yours so far paint a pretty poor picture of PHB ranger if these are the "strengths"
I'm not sure why you would ever give the familiar/pet a boon in a game... especially if not all players have one.
Tattooing an animal would get PETA on you pretty fast as well....I wouldn't ever do it to an animal
Out of the abyss, curse of strahd, yawning portal and several AL adventures give everyone who Participated or do a thing a boon or "mini boon", magicitems, or blessing. I know of dms who also do the same in every home game. Both Perkins and crawford have been seen doing this in several live events.
But yes data tracking is hard so it must be uncommon right?
This is a tangent, but the one build I have thought of where I would want to play a PHB Beastmaster is a Ranger / Shadow Sorcerer Multiclass.
Take the Summon Beast spell, and now I have a creature I can command with my bonus action + my companion that I command with my action + the hound of ill omen which acts on its own. Basically, I would only play a PHB Beastmaster if I wanted to ensure every part of my turn went into commanding three different animals to fight for me while I sit in the back.
Yeah I think D4 did something like that. Called it the Pokemon Tainer or something like that (for the clicks, not because he thought it's the best name for it lol). It's a fun concept but it'd still feel weird to have all these weapon proficiencies, ability scores etc and just don't do anything with it but to each their own.
Oh yeah, itd be weird for sure. Definitely only a build I would play for a one-shot or something, lol
Epic boons are just one example. Cause of strahd has at least 2 types of boons. Magical tattoos, manual books(yes there are ways to let a beast read) dm or campaign specific boons like in AL. Ravinia symic mutation. Training. Devine blessings. Earned titles. Gone just for switching from beast of the land to sea.
I am seriously beginning to think you never play any fun adventures.
Also,If you complain about a ranger using his own money for healing and Resurrection I will report you to PETA. 😉 you sure like to find any excuse to complain don't you.
A Ranger's spell slot is a valuable resource most of the time affecting whole encounters or making combat turning choices. selfishly letting either companion die is a waste and planning on tasha's dieing is just silly and out of character for a beastmaster.
I just point out facts when they are presented.
Overall all of yours so far paint a pretty poor picture of PHB ranger if these are the "strengths"
I'm not sure why you would ever give the familiar/pet a boon in a game... especially if not all players have one.
Tattooing an animal would get PETA on you pretty fast as well....I wouldn't ever do it to an animal
Out of the abyss, curse of strahd, yawning portal and several AL adventures give everyone who Participated or do a thing a boon or "mini boon", magicitems, or blessing. I know of dms who also do the same in every home game. Both Perkins and crawford have been seen doing this in several live events.
But yes data tracking is hard so it must be uncommon right?
Those boons are meant for the PCs and I would never personally apply any of them to a creature with the HP of a level 1 PC.... It's just not a smart thing to do.
And as for magic items.... You just give it to them next pet I guess? I wouldn't give magic items to animals anyway as they can't even use them unless it's a passive effect.
Also you as a DM could simply have the boon effect every creature they summon as a Tashas ranger to the same effect..... So overall your point still seems a poor reason.
Yes Forgotten Realms does. Hence why I didn't say they don't exist there. That'd be daft. However not everyone plays in the Forgotten Realms. In fact many many groups play in homebrew settings.
So racial feature and a whole subclass are about equal in your opinion. I don't even know how to respond to that. It's just absurd.
A flying race has less opportunity to rework their strategy? I forgot that they have to fly all the time or sit out on an adventure ... oh wait they don't.
Yes because it's harder to change races than change functions for your beast.
I really don't know what to respond to stuff like that anymore. Your arguments contain less and less logic. I think this has gone long enough, I won't be replying anymore.
Unfortunately this is what I think they are going for.
I have found the ranger forum to be an echo chamber of defense of outdated design concepts and underwhelming features.
It's turning somewhat around at least though so thanks for contributing what you have so far!
Oh yeah same for sure. A reason why I barely post here anymore. It's just obnoxious.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
I'm actually going to revise my opinion on the topic, with a single build I can think of where PHB beastmaster is required and therefor better than the Tasha's revision.
Flying mounted archery. You pick a small race of your choice, grab a pteranodon (Medium creature with a fly speed), mount up and fly 300 feet into the air, grab mounted combatant then sharpshooter for feats. You keep diving up and down to enter/exit the 320ft range of shortbows and light crossbows and plink at enemies at maximum range while mounted combatant keeps your pet alive. You are outside the range of aoe spells, and redirect any attacks made at either of you, which will likely also have disadvantage because of the range.
Other than this build which only works in open air spaces though, the beastmaster's only other somewhat viable options is a cheap poison milking animal (or you could just befriend one and milk it while having an actual subclass) or finding an animal companion with +perception (or expertise, I would need to actually look to see if one has it) as well as keen senses to get an impressive passive perception score to autodetect things for you.
If you want an archer that can fly, you have better options if you simply choose a race that can fly.
But hey, nothing stops you from playing that if that's what you want. I'm just saying that mechanically there are better and easier options if you want to play an aerial archer.
Which I also think is the heart of this discussion. That is, no matter how many curious things you can do by choosing one creature or another, that does not mean that the PHB Beast Master is a good subclass. And it's no better mechanically than Tasha's. You could even do an air assault build with a faerie and the Beast of the sky, if that's what you want.
You are right. Uniqueness is not justification of good. It is justification of its existence because some people have narrative ideas they want in spite of higher optimization tables. like flying Mounts vs race . Uniqueness is part of good design not good functionality.
In order to be good,
1. It must provide ways to match its peers. Those peers should be equal in build optimization, and success rate in a party role.
2.The costs or downsides provides benefits above the standards to meet or exceed similar lower cost lower reward scenarios.
In order to be good design
1. It must be Within standard tolerance,(reasonably so close to "good")
2. Have Achieved established design goals(note not necessarily player goals). various statements of the design team help us infer alot of these. Such as scope of balance, functionality, fiill at least some roles, amount of narrative implications and entertainment.
Now some things that are not required to be good.
1. Be the best. An a student is still good even if others do better.
2. Have universal appeal. A good job might be good even if I have no desire to do it. My good and universal good are not the same.
3. To force a narrative beyond expectations and rules. "Flavor is free" but "entitlement is guided by the laws".
With all this in mind phb beastmaster can fulfill those requirements.
I would argue that it's not doing it's established goals though as the loss of a pet takes an entire day of downtime to reset... Which the game does not suggest or guarantee will happen.
Also the design of the class is supposed to be you and your pet attack in tandem and work well together to do so.. But in practice you are actually both attacking less by attacking together as you have to give up your attack.
This also creates anti-synergy with several of your ranger spells like hunters mark that require YOU attack the creature not your pet.
Overall it's bad design because it's not mechanically effective with your base class and it's cost of replenishment discourages it's use....
One golden rule of balance is to never ever make an ability or feature "balanced" by setting the cost to high to reasonably use.
Firstly you avoid frequency of your death senarios.. this is important to how big ofan impact it really is. a single 8 across an adventuring period needs to be analyzed as such. Tasha's beast can situationalally go 20 hours without their subclass. A wizard can spend a week resting there features wich is trash by your analysis but if frequency is taken into account a wizard thinks the risk is worth it.
The game establishes a baseline of 5 or 6 "uses" of a feature before a long rest. A beast attacking an absorbing damage is two uses of the feature. A skill checks is another. A ranger can get 6 uses without effort. Investing and smart play gets you alot more.
Secondly it's just because "you" want tandem attacks dosen't mean it's designed that way. There are several paths that lead to adventuring success and tunnel vision on the one you want is dumb. Especially when Tasha's ranger and artificer and summoner are designed to work that way.
The anti-Synergy is only that way if you don't understand you own build. Every class has anti synergies if they make wrong choices.
Bezerkers folly one works if the cost is too high. But you can't even define costs. Don't be like a rent to own company or a bait and switch sales pich.
Thirdly. I thought you weren't going to respond to me anymore. At least I try to add something new each time I post. We've heard but "death" and "I feel bad". You are acknowledged.
Firstly you avoid frequency of your death senarios.. this is important to how big ofan impact it really is. a single 8 across an adventuring period needs to be analyzed as such. Tasha's beast can situationalally go 20 hours without their subclass. A wizard can spend a week resting there features wich is trash by your analysis but if frequency is taken into account a wizard thinks the risk is worth it.
The game establishes a baseline of 5 or 6 "uses" of a feature before a long rest. A beast attacking an absorbing damage is two uses of the feature. A skill checks is another. A ranger can get 6 uses without effort. Investing and smart play gets you alot more.
Secondly it's just because "you" want tandem attacks dosen't mean it's designed that way. There are several paths that lead to adventuring success and tunnel vision on the one you want is dumb. Especially when Tasha's ranger and artificer and summoner are designed to work that way.
The anti-Synergy is only that way if you don't understand you own build. Every class has anti synergies if they make wrong choices.
Bezerkers folly one works if the cost is too high. But you can't even define costs. Don't be like a rent to own company or a bait and switch sales pich.
Thirdly. I thought you weren't going to respond to me anymore.
A beast could die in a single attack very soon into it's life and there isn't much you can do about it until level 5 when the party would have to give up their only third level slot to revivify it. This is a poor trade and bad design to rely on a another PC so you can have your subclass. This also assumes you have a caster capable and willing to do so.
I don't accept every subclass is anti-synergy at all....
Battlemaster Fighter has no anti-synergy features.
Gloomstalker has no anti-synergy features.
There are so many subclasses that actively work extremely well with their base class. PHB beastmaster doesn't.
Tandem attacks are the defining feature of the class... That's what they get early and what is improved upon later in the subclass. It's objectively wrong to say it's not a major focus of the subclass as a whole if not it's sole defining feature.
I didn't say I wasn't going to respond.... You are confused I believe
Tandem attacks are the defining feature of the class... That's what they get early and what is improved upon later in the subclass. It's objectively wrong to say it's not a major focus of the subclass as a whole if not it's sole defining feature.
This is where you and many others trip up and ruin the experience. Tandem attacks are the defining features of tasha's and artificer(mostly) but not the phb.
The defining features of phb are a companion with utility, field control and field flexibility, The feature is A team to work together not a mob to do the same roles. Yes they can attack together but that's only a function of some companions but the whole subclass is not designed for that. Try to use a fork as a spoon dosen't mean the fork is bad design.
IF you are unable to avoid hits:
Now in order to kill a beast at level 3 your going to need to deal 24 damage in 1 hit in order to oneshot a beast. (Which is easily enhanced via spells) And increases by 8 per level. This happens alot less than you make it out to be because a dm would have to spend most of his xp budget on attacking the phb beast to do this. Every other party member would be unhurt and get their free rounds of attacks. Would the ranger be sad.... of course but the player made a valuable trade solving one whole day of work. They can then choose how to proceed just like you would for any pc that got focused fired by a dm. Resurrection or get a new one for free. Flavor is free you could even say the spirit of your old one transfers to the new one (Same body or not) as long as the mechanics are followed.
The complaint is always "I don't like the tactics and strategies" even though you say "bad design."
You do not need another class to function with your subclass as a phb Because you get a free new one.(from the current environment) every environment has several useful options. Even avernus has hellwasp grubs and Sturges. But why would you search when your pack mule, messenger blood hawk, sled dog or pocket mouse could do the same or better.
If you want to protect your investment you can use Resurrection. Now sometimes trading gold for positive benefits is worth it. Sometimes it is not. thankfully a phb ranger has money making options. Such as two creatures for foraging,(hawking, hunting) and favored terrain extra engaged activities crafting, foraging. Or harvesting sales (spidersilk, milk, poison, wool)
Tandem attacks are the defining feature of the class... That's what they get early and what is improved upon later in the subclass. It's objectively wrong to say it's not a major focus of the subclass as a whole if not it's sole defining feature.
This is where you and many others trip up and ruin the experience. Tandem attacks are the defining features of tasha's and artificer(mostly) but not the phb.
The defining features of phb are a companion with utility, field control and field flexibility, The feature is A team to work together not a mob to do the same roles. Yes they can attack together but that's only a function of some companions but the whole subclass is not designed for that. Try to use a fork as a spoon dosen't mean the fork is bad design.
IF you are unable to avoid hits:
Now in order to kill a beast at level 3 your going to need to deal 24 damage in 1 hit in order to oneshot a beast. (Which is easily enhanced via spells) And increases by 8 per level. This happens alot less than you make it out to be because a dm would have to spend most of his xp budget on attacking the phb beast to do this. Every other party member would be unhurt and get their free rounds of attacks. Would the ranger be sad.... of course but the player made a valuable trade solving one whole day of work. They can then choose how to proceed just like you would for any pc that got focused fired by a dm. Resurrection or get a new one for free. Flavor is free you could even say the spirit of your old one transfers to the new one (Same body or not) as long as the mechanics are followed.
The complaint is always "I don't like the tactics and strategies" even though you say "bad design."
Each subclass features is directly effecting it's use in combat.... This is just fact not an opinion.
Your examples for field control and the like are not applicable in most situations as many have already pointed out.. You aren't even sure to get the creature you need for the application you want and if you do it's still likely to die and leave you without a subclass at all.
So if you can't use it(or in your case for some reason just don't use it for) combat and the out of combat utility is at best even with Tashas (imo worse because you can lose it so easily) then you are left with nothing redeeming about the subclass.
If you want to play with flavor only with a pet a chain Warlock is infinity better
You are right. Uniqueness is not justification of good. It is justification of its existence because some people have narrative ideas they want in spite of higher optimization tables. like flying Mounts vs race . Uniqueness is part of good design not good functionality.
How good or bad narrative ideas are is subjective and I'm not going to get involved. In fact, I think there is no possible discussion there. Do you think the PHB beast master is better narratively than Tasha's? Perfect, you'll have your reasons and I think it's great. What I cannot agree with is that it is mechanically better, because it is false. It's much worse.
But if what we're talking about is that it allows you to do I don't know what weird concept you have in mind, hey perfect. Play what you want. You can even make that exotic build more or less work (like the archer riding a pterodactyl).
What I want to make clear is that discussing whether a build is fun or narratively interesting is absurd. That is something so highly subjective that I see no room for such discussion. That is why in the forums the discussions usually revolve around the mechanics, which are much more objective and qualifiable.
You are right. Uniqueness is not justification of good. It is justification of its existence because some people have narrative ideas they want in spite of higher optimization tables. like flying Mounts vs race . Uniqueness is part of good design not good functionality.
How good or bad narrative ideas are is subjective and I'm not going to get involved. In fact, I think there is no possible discussion there. Do you think the PHB beast master is better narratively than Tasha's? Perfect, you'll have your reasons and I think it's great. What I cannot agree with is that it is mechanically better, because it is false. It's much worse.
But if what we're talking about is that it allows you to do I don't know what weird concept you have in mind, hey perfect. Play what you want. You can even make that exotic build more or less work (like the archer riding a pterodactyl).
What I want to make clear is that discussing whether a build is fun or narratively interesting is absurd. That is something so highly subjective that I see no room for such discussion. That is why in the forums the discussions usually revolve around the mechanics, which are much more objective and qualifiable.
I think this is fair.
I admit that my impression of a class heavily relies on this mechanics and design of those mechanics.
Because I feel the PHB beastmaster is bad in a mechanical sense it's bad overall for me.
Some people can overlook poor design and find fun in the subclass which I should respect more. The game is about fun after all.
But I also agree that I will likely still point out the mechanic issues with the subclass if the question of the subclass and why it's viewed poorly comes up.
You are right. Uniqueness is not justification of good. It is justification of its existence because some people have narrative ideas they want in spite of higher optimization tables. like flying Mounts vs race . Uniqueness is part of good design not good functionality.
How good or bad narrative ideas are is subjective and I'm not going to get involved. In fact, I think there is no possible discussion there. Do you think the PHB beast master is better narratively than Tasha's? Perfect, you'll have your reasons and I think it's great. What I cannot agree with is that it is mechanically better, because it is false. It's much worse.
But if what we're talking about is that it allows you to do I don't know what weird concept you have in mind, hey perfect. Play what you want. You can even make that exotic build more or less work (like the archer riding a pterodactyl).
What I want to make clear is that discussing whether a build is fun or narratively interesting is absurd. That is something so highly subjective that I see no room for such discussion. That is why in the forums the discussions usually revolve around the mechanics, which are much more objective and qualifiable.
I think this is fair.
I admit that my impression of a class heavily relies on this mechanics and design of those mechanics.
Because I feel the PHB beastmaster is bad in a mechanical sense it's bad overall for me.
Some people can overlook poor design and find fun in the subclass which I should respect more. The game is about fun after all.
But I also agree that I will likely still point out the mechanic issues with the subclass if the question of the subclass and why it's viewed poorly comes up.
my point is too many people claim the class is bad because of narrative over mechanics. Swapping from a snake to a wolf is no fun from them even though they both have mechanical value. getting a new local pet that preforms just as "good or better" doesn't fit their narrative.
Many people claim that even if you can replace your pet the narrative of the death is what devalues the class not the mechanics of it.
many people claim the narrative of the action economy is the problem even if They get better results by functioning differently.
I say those people have valid concerns and that is why they should choose tasha's or other options... but their concerns are not a reflection of how bad the class is.
So for example as long as the environment has "A valid replacement" the complaint about being bad design is not a good one. Here is the standard list. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/appendix-b-monster-lists . every environment has options for decent pets. Even Avernus has two valid companions but its not on this chart. There is also a list of purchasable pets, not to mention exotic sales from hubs such as Sigil. Having a spare blood hawk is great for other spells as well bring it with you as a back up in case the first one dies.
Since a ranger doesn't need an hour prepping spells that is a perfect time to take care of any extra animal business you need to.
Now the PHB ranger action economy is the same way. Most people complain about the way it feels not the way it acts. Not taking the attack action has a loss of compatible features but that just means you focus other ones that are. The phb provides options that keep its combat potential in scale with all of its contemporary classes and subclasses. as new books have been released there are even more new options to use and it has held decent damage numbers even with a design philosophy of natural power creep.
I dislike it because it was poorly balanced and mechanically awkward. Now compared to other options it's just completely blown away by much better implementations of a "pet" class.
Flavor wise it was ok but oddly bland.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Out of the abyss, curse of strahd, yawning portal and several AL adventures give everyone who Participated or do a thing a boon or "mini boon", magicitems, or blessing. I know of dms who also do the same in every home game. Both Perkins and crawford have been seen doing this in several live events.
But yes data tracking is hard so it must be uncommon right?
Fair enough!
Does sound fun for a short campaign or one shot
Those boons are meant for the PCs and I would never personally apply any of them to a creature with the HP of a level 1 PC.... It's just not a smart thing to do.
And as for magic items.... You just give it to them next pet I guess? I wouldn't give magic items to animals anyway as they can't even use them unless it's a passive effect.
Also you as a DM could simply have the boon effect every creature they summon as a Tashas ranger to the same effect..... So overall your point still seems a poor reason.
Oh yeah same for sure. A reason why I barely post here anymore. It's just obnoxious.
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
If you want an archer that can fly, you have better options if you simply choose a race that can fly.
But hey, nothing stops you from playing that if that's what you want. I'm just saying that mechanically there are better and easier options if you want to play an aerial archer.
Which I also think is the heart of this discussion. That is, no matter how many curious things you can do by choosing one creature or another, that does not mean that the PHB Beast Master is a good subclass. And it's no better mechanically than Tasha's. You could even do an air assault build with a faerie and the Beast of the sky, if that's what you want.
You are right. Uniqueness is not justification of good. It is justification of its existence because some people have narrative ideas they want in spite of higher optimization tables. like flying Mounts vs race . Uniqueness is part of good design not good functionality.
In order to be good,
1. It must provide ways to match its peers. Those peers should be equal in build optimization, and success rate in a party role.
2.The costs or downsides provides benefits above the standards to meet or exceed similar lower cost lower reward scenarios.
In order to be good design
1. It must be Within standard tolerance,(reasonably so close to "good")
2. Have Achieved established design goals(note not necessarily player goals). various statements of the design team help us infer alot of these. Such as scope of balance, functionality, fiill at least some roles, amount of narrative implications and entertainment.
Now some things that are not required to be good.
1. Be the best. An a student is still good even if others do better.
2. Have universal appeal. A good job might be good even if I have no desire to do it. My good and universal good are not the same.
3. To force a narrative beyond expectations and rules. "Flavor is free" but "entitlement is guided by the laws".
With all this in mind phb beastmaster can fulfill those requirements.
I would argue that it's not doing it's established goals though as the loss of a pet takes an entire day of downtime to reset... Which the game does not suggest or guarantee will happen.
Also the design of the class is supposed to be you and your pet attack in tandem and work well together to do so.. But in practice you are actually both attacking less by attacking together as you have to give up your attack.
This also creates anti-synergy with several of your ranger spells like hunters mark that require YOU attack the creature not your pet.
Overall it's bad design because it's not mechanically effective with your base class and it's cost of replenishment discourages it's use....
One golden rule of balance is to never ever make an ability or feature "balanced" by setting the cost to high to reasonably use.
Call it the "Berserker Folly"
Firstly you avoid frequency of your death senarios.. this is important to how big ofan impact it really is. a single 8 across an adventuring period needs to be analyzed as such. Tasha's beast can situationalally go 20 hours without their subclass. A wizard can spend a week resting there features wich is trash by your analysis but if frequency is taken into account a wizard thinks the risk is worth it.
The game establishes a baseline of 5 or 6 "uses" of a feature before a long rest. A beast attacking an absorbing damage is two uses of the feature. A skill checks is another. A ranger can get 6 uses without effort. Investing and smart play gets you alot more.
Secondly it's just because "you" want tandem attacks dosen't mean it's designed that way. There are several paths that lead to adventuring success and tunnel vision on the one you want is dumb. Especially when Tasha's ranger and artificer and summoner are designed to work that way.
The anti-Synergy is only that way if you don't understand you own build. Every class has anti synergies if they make wrong choices.
Bezerkers folly one works if the cost is too high. But you can't even define costs. Don't be like a rent to own company or a bait and switch sales pich.
Thirdly. I thought you weren't going to respond to me anymore. At least I try to add something new each time I post. We've heard but "death" and "I feel bad". You are acknowledged.
A beast could die in a single attack very soon into it's life and there isn't much you can do about it until level 5 when the party would have to give up their only third level slot to revivify it. This is a poor trade and bad design to rely on a another PC so you can have your subclass. This also assumes you have a caster capable and willing to do so.
I don't accept every subclass is anti-synergy at all....
Battlemaster Fighter has no anti-synergy features.
Gloomstalker has no anti-synergy features.
There are so many subclasses that actively work extremely well with their base class. PHB beastmaster doesn't.
Tandem attacks are the defining feature of the class... That's what they get early and what is improved upon later in the subclass. It's objectively wrong to say it's not a major focus of the subclass as a whole if not it's sole defining feature.
I didn't say I wasn't going to respond.... You are confused I believe
This is where you and many others trip up and ruin the experience. Tandem attacks are the defining features of tasha's and artificer(mostly) but not the phb.
The defining features of phb are a companion with utility, field control and field flexibility, The feature is A team to work together not a mob to do the same roles. Yes they can attack together but that's only a function of some companions but the whole subclass is not designed for that. Try to use a fork as a spoon dosen't mean the fork is bad design.
IF you are unable to avoid hits:
Now in order to kill a beast at level 3 your going to need to deal 24 damage in 1 hit in order to oneshot a beast. (Which is easily enhanced via spells) And increases by 8 per level. This happens alot less than you make it out to be because a dm would have to spend most of his xp budget on attacking the phb beast to do this. Every other party member would be unhurt and get their free rounds of attacks. Would the ranger be sad.... of course but the player made a valuable trade solving one whole day of work. They can then choose how to proceed just like you would for any pc that got focused fired by a dm. Resurrection or get a new one for free. Flavor is free you could even say the spirit of your old one transfers to the new one (Same body or not) as long as the mechanics are followed.
The complaint is always "I don't like the tactics and strategies" even though you say "bad design."
You do not need another class to function with your subclass as a phb Because you get a free new one.(from the current environment) every environment has several useful options. Even avernus has hellwasp grubs and Sturges. But why would you search when your pack mule, messenger blood hawk, sled dog or pocket mouse could do the same or better.
If you want to protect your investment you can use Resurrection. Now sometimes trading gold for positive benefits is worth it. Sometimes it is not. thankfully a phb ranger has money making options. Such as two creatures for foraging,(hawking, hunting) and favored terrain extra engaged activities crafting, foraging. Or harvesting sales (spidersilk, milk, poison, wool)
Each subclass features is directly effecting it's use in combat.... This is just fact not an opinion.
Your examples for field control and the like are not applicable in most situations as many have already pointed out.. You aren't even sure to get the creature you need for the application you want and if you do it's still likely to die and leave you without a subclass at all.
So if you can't use it(or in your case for some reason just don't use it for) combat and the out of combat utility is at best even with Tashas (imo worse because you can lose it so easily) then you are left with nothing redeeming about the subclass.
If you want to play with flavor only with a pet a chain Warlock is infinity better
How good or bad narrative ideas are is subjective and I'm not going to get involved. In fact, I think there is no possible discussion there. Do you think the PHB beast master is better narratively than Tasha's? Perfect, you'll have your reasons and I think it's great.
What I cannot agree with is that it is mechanically better, because it is false. It's much worse.
But if what we're talking about is that it allows you to do I don't know what weird concept you have in mind, hey perfect. Play what you want. You can even make that exotic build more or less work (like the archer riding a pterodactyl).
What I want to make clear is that discussing whether a build is fun or narratively interesting is absurd. That is something so highly subjective that I see no room for such discussion. That is why in the forums the discussions usually revolve around the mechanics, which are much more objective and qualifiable.
I think this is fair.
I admit that my impression of a class heavily relies on this mechanics and design of those mechanics.
Because I feel the PHB beastmaster is bad in a mechanical sense it's bad overall for me.
Some people can overlook poor design and find fun in the subclass which I should respect more. The game is about fun after all.
But I also agree that I will likely still point out the mechanic issues with the subclass if the question of the subclass and why it's viewed poorly comes up.
my point is too many people claim the class is bad because of narrative over mechanics. Swapping from a snake to a wolf is no fun from them even though they both have mechanical value. getting a new local pet that preforms just as "good or better" doesn't fit their narrative.
Many people claim that even if you can replace your pet the narrative of the death is what devalues the class not the mechanics of it.
many people claim the narrative of the action economy is the problem even if They get better results by functioning differently.
I say those people have valid concerns and that is why they should choose tasha's or other options... but their concerns are not a reflection of how bad the class is.
So for example as long as the environment has "A valid replacement" the complaint about being bad design is not a good one. Here is the standard list. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/appendix-b-monster-lists . every environment has options for decent pets. Even Avernus has two valid companions but its not on this chart. There is also a list of purchasable pets, not to mention exotic sales from hubs such as Sigil. Having a spare blood hawk is great for other spells as well bring it with you as a back up in case the first one dies.
Since a ranger doesn't need an hour prepping spells that is a perfect time to take care of any extra animal business you need to.
Now the PHB ranger action economy is the same way. Most people complain about the way it feels not the way it acts. Not taking the attack action has a loss of compatible features but that just means you focus other ones that are. The phb provides options that keep its combat potential in scale with all of its contemporary classes and subclasses. as new books have been released there are even more new options to use and it has held decent damage numbers even with a design philosophy of natural power creep.
I dislike it because it was poorly balanced and mechanically awkward. Now compared to other options it's just completely blown away by much better implementations of a "pet" class.
Flavor wise it was ok but oddly bland.