It is my personal belief that WOCT is starting to make mistakes with there lack of defined rules for creature types. Here are two examples of just how vague typing can be. wich fits tressym better?
From the monster manual
Beasts are nonhumanoid creatures that are a natural part of the fantasy ecology. Some of them have magical powers, but most are unintelligent and lack any society or language. Beasts include all varieties of ordinary animals, dinosaurs, and giant versions of animals.
Monstrosities are monsters in the strictest sense — frightening creatures that are not ordinary, not truly natural, and almost never benign. Some are the results of magical experimentation gone awry (such as owlbears), and others are the product of terrible curses (including minotaurs and yuan-ti). They defy categorization, and in some sense serve as a catch-all category for creatures that don’t fit into any other type.
In the most recent errata, They removed the beast type Tressym. originally there was both a monstrosity and a beast version. They skipped tressym the first time they changed SKT.( NOTE the previous errata removed beast type from the Crag cat.) There was some discussion at a live event about creatures with the same name but diffrent stat blocks. Jeremy or Chris said (I cant remember which but will find the refrence material if possible) that WOTC intentionally changed most statblocks to match errata updates but a few were intentionally left that way. Demogorgon was Another in the same boat as Tressym where they were intentionally separate.
I think beasts in general have been held back by type to make them less intresting in combat. there should be more with uniqe skills and features. probably resistances as well but resistances seem less effective in previous edditions. Any loss of cool Beastmaster options or unique wild shapes seems bad to me.
So as for the history of tressym being magically created but then let loose and breading over a hundred years or more is perticualry intresting. This narative is making most of them a part of the natrual ecosystem. Hence its seems more fitting for them to fit into beast type than the Monstrosity type. even then i would rather have both. type gets really wierd if you also have ravnica and symic rangers modifying their pets.
There is also alot of confusion arround new Types for other standard PC races. This effects spells, causes conflicts with Primeval awareness, even affects the usefulness of favored enemy.
thoughts? oppinons? anyone else ready to sign a pettition to restore both Tressym creatures and have WOTC re-evaluate type changes?
I think the crag cat was changed mostly to prevent druids (read Circle of the Moon) from gaining nondetection and spell turning at 2nd level. I think that it might be better for WotC to consider more stat block within the mechanics of class features rather than reusing monster stat blocks as options for player features.
The small movement towards PC races (and now a drake companion) being things that interact with Primeval Awareness bother me, which I'm sure I'm in the huge minority of people that even care. But it does.
The idea that "beasts are boring" bothers me too. Using DND Beyond to filter monsters of medium size or smaller, at CR 1/4 or less, but NOT a beast reveals that there is a lot of room for interesting things to be done at those size sand CRs that can be fun and interesting while mechanically sound and useful. In a world with dragons and wizards, I see no reason why a cat shouldn't have darkvision and be proficient in both athletics and acrobatics, or why other interesting mechanics can't exist for beasts. I would point us all towards this section of the Dungeon Master's Guide to see how much official RAW permission and flexibility there is for a DM (perhaps working with a beast master player) to modify, add to, or reimagine a stat block from the Monster Manual. Small changes can do a lot to add to the fun and usefulness of a beast master companion. Example? Sure!
Giant Skunk
Medium beast, unaligned
Armor Class
12
Hit Points
11 (2d8 + 2)
Speed
30 ft., burrow 10 ft.
STR
8 (-1)
DEX
14 (+2)
CON
12 (+1)
INT
2 (-4)
WIS
14 (+2)
CHA
5 (-3)
Saving Throws
Con +3
Skills
Perception +4
Senses
darkvision 30 ft., passive Perception 14
Languages
—
Challenge
1/4 (50 XP)
Keen Smell.
The giant skunk has advantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on smell.
Actions
Bite.
Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 5 (1d6 + 2) piercing damage.
Spray (Recharge 6).
The giant skunk sprays a repulsive and foul smelling liquid from its body. Each creature in a 15-foot cone must make a DC 11 Constitution saving throw or be poisoned for 1 hour. While poisoned this way, any other creature that ends its turn within 5 feet of the creature must make a DC 11 Constitution saving throw or be poisoned until the end of its next turn.
I think the crag cat was changed mostly to prevent druids (read Circle of the Moon) from gaining nondetection and spell turning at 2nd level. I think that it might be better for WotC to consider more stat block within the mechanics of class features rather than reusing monster stat blocks as options for player features.
I think the crag cat was changed mostly to prevent druids (read Circle of the Moon) from gaining nondetection and spell turning at 2nd level. I think that it might be better for WotC to consider more stat block within the mechanics of class features rather than reusing monster stat blocks as options for player features.
If it really was just for moon druids why not alter the creature for an appropriate CR rather than just change its type? Is nondetection really gamebreaking at level 2? Is spell turning (note it only works on Single target savingthrow spells )? Tecnicaly creatures are gated behind the druid having seen Them, should situationalness be a factor?(situational the ranger buzz word)
every time wotc has gone to feature or spell related stat block: unique features and options disapear. My point is i think those uniqe features are important parts of the game. part of what make creatures intresting is their place and use in the world. I think taking it away from players options waters down their significance.
I think the crag cat was changed mostly to prevent druids (read Circle of the Moon) from gaining nondetection and spell turning at 2nd level. I think that it might be better for WotC to consider more stat block within the mechanics of class features rather than reusing monster stat blocks as options for player features.
Yes there are balance issues, At the same time JC clearly says People wanted it and they accounted for it. I see the beastmaster restrictions as necessary to get all the goods. I know if i have another dm at the table I actually prefer them to play Druids or BM rangers or summoners because the other players get to see unique and fun monster use.
The comment kind of hints that genaric stat blocks leads to disasisfaction. Hence the change to "monster manual looting." IMO. The problem is WOTC being "wishy washy" and not backing or acounting for what was decided in the past. Possibly broken CR Calculations.
I think the crag cat was changed mostly to prevent druids (read Circle of the Moon) from gaining nondetection and spell turning at 2nd level. I think that it might be better for WotC to consider more stat block within the mechanics of class features rather than reusing monster stat blocks as options for player features.
Yes there are balance issues, At the same time JC clearly says People wanted it and they accounted for it. I see the beastmaster restrictions as nessicary to get all the goods. I know if i have another dm at the table I actually prefer them to play Druids or BM rangers or summoners because the other players get to see unique and fun monster use.
The comment kind of HInts that genaric stat blocks leads to disasisfaction. Hence the change to "monster manual looting." IMO. The problem is WOTC being "wishy washy" and not backing or acounting for that desision in the past.
Yes. They "can be more generous" because they know what they're giving us. Translation, we all get the same thing. Super vanilla and plain across the board. No "exploring" the game and character design.
looking at the druid "controls" a druid cant cast spells Period in beast form. this would include nondetection granted by the beast shape. so All they woud get is Spell turning.(single target saves only)
You can’t cast spells, and your ability to speak or take any action that requires hands is limited to the capabilities of your beast form. Transforming doesn’t break your concentration on a spell you’ve already cast, however, or prevent you from taking actions that are part of a spell, such as call lightning, that you’ve already cast.
This means a druid cant even cast Dancing lights as deep rothe.
I think the crag cat was changed mostly to prevent druids (read Circle of the Moon) from gaining nondetection and spell turning at 2nd level. I think that it might be better for WotC to consider more stat block within the mechanics of class features rather than reusing monster stat blocks as options for player features.
Yes there are balance issues, At the same time JC clearly says People wanted it and they accounted for it. I see the beastmaster restrictions as necessary to get all the goods. I know if i have another dm at the table I actually prefer them to play Druids or BM rangers or summoners because the other players get to see unique and fun monster use.
The comment kind of hints that genaric stat blocks leads to disasisfaction. Hence the change to "monster manual looting." IMO. The problem is WOTC being "wishy washy" and not backing or acounting for what was decided in the past. Possibly broken CR Calculations.
I'd argue that the popularity of the other pet classes (Battle Smith, Wildfire Druid, Creation Bard, etc) and how they all tested well in UA points to the community as a whole having changed their minds about generic stat blocks vs looting the Monster Manual, and that the Tasha Beast Master was a response to that.
Which is neither a good thing or a bad thing in and of itself. The community could have been the ones that were wishy-washy. Or perhaps the people that compose the community nowadays are different than the people who did the playtest for 5e. Or maybe they simply outweigh them. Or maybe they thought they'd be satisfied with one direction and in practice found they generally preferred the other.
Which says absolutely nothing about the viability of the PHB Beast Master vs the Tasha Beast Master. As we've discussed ad nauseum here, the PHB BM is perfectly viable (albeit requiring a high investment ceiling.) But that's besides the point. The point is the community wanted something else and WotC delivered an alternative.
And before people start (Frank,) I'm not saying the PHB Beast Master was bad. But let's not pretend the majority of people weren't dissatisfied with it. Just like we can't pretend that most complaints about the Beast Master as a whole whittled down to a whisper after the release of the Tasha version.
I'm not making a value judgment on the subclass itself. Rather just an observation about the discourse surrounding said subclass and how that guided the design direction of WotC in relation to it.
I think the crag cat was changed mostly to prevent druids (read Circle of the Moon) from gaining nondetection and spell turning at 2nd level. I think that it might be better for WotC to consider more stat block within the mechanics of class features rather than reusing monster stat blocks as options for player features.
Yes there are balance issues, At the same time JC clearly says People wanted it and they accounted for it. I see the beastmaster restrictions as necessary to get all the goods. I know if i have another dm at the table I actually prefer them to play Druids or BM rangers or summoners because the other players get to see unique and fun monster use.
The comment kind of hints that genaric stat blocks leads to disasisfaction. Hence the change to "monster manual looting." IMO. The problem is WOTC being "wishy washy" and not backing or acounting for what was decided in the past. Possibly broken CR Calculations.
I'd argue that the popularity of the other pet classes (Battle Smith, Wildfire Druid, Creation Bard, etc) and how they all tested well in UA points to the community as a whole having changed their minds about generic stat blocks vs looting the Monster Manual, and that the Tasha Beast Master was a response to that.
Which is neither a good thing or a bad thing in and of itself. The community could have been the ones that were wishy-washy. Or perhaps the people that compose the community nowadays are different than the people who did the playtest for 5e. Or maybe they simply outweigh them. Or maybe they thought they'd be satisfied with one direction and in practice found they generally preferred the other.
Which says absolutely nothing about the viability of the PHB Beast Master vs the Tasha Beast Master. As we've discussed ad nauseum here, the PHB BM is perfectly viable (albeit requiring a high investment ceiling.) But that's besides the point. The point is the community wanted something else and WotC delivered an alternative.
good point.
Both options are viabale and neither will sastify the entire crowd. beastmaster is divided but this is not a beasmaster thread, its a creature thread................. So going back to the original point. It still seems like a better the game needs better defined Creature types and CR calculations to
Should tryessm be a valid Beast. I think mechanics and at least Forgotten Relms narrative support having two types of tressym.(one beast one monstrosity)
Why does crag cat fit monstrosity over Beast? game definitons lean twards beast. IMO
Player type changes (fey mostly but others are in the works)both affect favored enemy and Primeaval awareness? what are the down sides and benifits?
I think the crag cat was changed mostly to prevent druids (read Circle of the Moon) from gaining nondetection and spell turning at 2nd level. I think that it might be better for WotC to consider more stat block within the mechanics of class features rather than reusing monster stat blocks as options for player features.
They are strangely way more conservative about the beast master than they are with the druid, ie no size restrictions on wild shape (just movement speeds beyond walking an cr).I remember asking Mearls about the whole size restriction back when he was still doing the happy fun hours and it basically worry about having a 2 x2 squares of 'permanent' blocker in combat.
And before people start (Frank,) I'm not saying the PHB Beast Master was bad. But let's not pretend the majority of people weren't dissatisfied with it. Just like we can't pretend that most complaints about the Beast Master as a whole whittled down to a whisper after the release of the Tasha version.
I'm not making a value judgment on the subclass itself. Rather just an observation about the discourse surrounding said subclass and how that guided the design direction of WotC in relation to it.
I think the crag cat was changed mostly to prevent druids (read Circle of the Moon) from gaining nondetection and spell turning at 2nd level. I think that it might be better for WotC to consider more stat block within the mechanics of class features rather than reusing monster stat blocks as options for player features.
They are strangely way more conservative about the beast master than they are with the druid, ie no size restrictions on wild shape (just movement speeds beyond walking an cr).I remember asking Mearls about the whole size restriction back when he was still doing the happy fun hours and it basically worry about having a 2 x2 squares of 'permanent' blocker in combat.
Yeah. I’ve DMed for and played as a ranger having a larger companion (home game). And tactical, it is a huge advantage, even BEFORE the auto dodge errata.
I think the crag cat was changed mostly to prevent druids (read Circle of the Moon) from gaining nondetection and spell turning at 2nd level. I think that it might be better for WotC to consider more stat block within the mechanics of class features rather than reusing monster stat blocks as options for player features.
Yes there are balance issues, At the same time JC clearly says People wanted it and they accounted for it. I see the beastmaster restrictions as necessary to get all the goods. I know if i have another dm at the table I actually prefer them to play Druids or BM rangers or summoners because the other players get to see unique and fun monster use.
The comment kind of hints that genaric stat blocks leads to disasisfaction. Hence the change to "monster manual looting." IMO. The problem is WOTC being "wishy washy" and not backing or acounting for what was decided in the past. Possibly broken CR Calculations.
I'd argue that the popularity of the other pet classes (Battle Smith, Wildfire Druid, Creation Bard, etc) and how they all tested well in UA points to the community as a whole having changed their minds about generic stat blocks vs looting the Monster Manual, and that the Tasha Beast Master was a response to that.
Which is neither a good thing or a bad thing in and of itself. The community could have been the ones that were wishy-washy. Or perhaps the people that compose the community nowadays are different than the people who did the playtest for 5e. Or maybe they simply outweigh them. Or maybe they thought they'd be satisfied with one direction and in practice found they generally preferred the other.
Which says absolutely nothing about the viability of the PHB Beast Master vs the Tasha Beast Master. As we've discussed ad nauseum here, the PHB BM is perfectly viable (albeit requiring a high investment ceiling.) But that's besides the point. The point is the community wanted something else and WotC delivered an alternative.
good point.
Both options are viabale and neither will sastify the entire crowd. beastmaster is divided but this is not a beasmaster thread, its a creature thread................. So going back to the original point. It still seems like a better the game needs better defined Creature types and CR calculations to
Should tryessm be a valid Beast. I think mechanics and at least Forgotten Relms narrative support having two types of tressym.(one beast one monstrosity)
Why does crag cat fit monstrosity over Beast? game definitons lean twards beast. IMO
Player type changes (fey mostly but others are in the works)both affect favored enemy and Primeaval awareness? what are the down sides and benifits?
Yes. I think at this “post Tasha’s world” them being “conservative” with the beast options is silly. For a beast master, a druid, an enemy, or a sidekick.
We Have another new mis-type .......Minatare giant space hamsters are monstrosities in the stat block.(according to the new review content videos) This feels like a deliberate anti ranger/druid choice. they literally made the most common beast companion NOT a beast.
It is my personal belief that WOCT is starting to make mistakes with there lack of defined rules for creature types. Here are two examples of just how vague typing can be. wich fits tressym better?
From the monster manual
Beasts are nonhumanoid creatures that are a natural part of the fantasy ecology. Some of them have magical powers, but most are unintelligent and lack any society or language. Beasts include all varieties of ordinary animals, dinosaurs, and giant versions of animals.
Monstrosities are monsters in the strictest sense — frightening creatures that are not ordinary, not truly natural, and almost never benign. Some are the results of magical experimentation gone awry (such as owlbears), and others are the product of terrible curses (including minotaurs and yuan-ti). They defy categorization, and in some sense serve as a catch-all category for creatures that don’t fit into any other type.
In the most recent errata, They removed the beast type Tressym. originally there was both a monstrosity and a beast version. They skipped tressym the first time they changed SKT.( NOTE the previous errata removed beast type from the Crag cat.) There was some discussion at a live event about creatures with the same name but diffrent stat blocks. Jeremy or Chris said (I cant remember which but will find the refrence material if possible) that WOTC intentionally changed most statblocks to match errata updates but a few were intentionally left that way. Demogorgon was Another in the same boat as Tressym where they were intentionally separate.
I think beasts in general have been held back by type to make them less intresting in combat. there should be more with uniqe skills and features. probably resistances as well but resistances seem less effective in previous edditions. Any loss of cool Beastmaster options or unique wild shapes seems bad to me.
So as for the history of tressym being magically created but then let loose and breading over a hundred years or more is perticualry intresting. This narative is making most of them a part of the natrual ecosystem. Hence its seems more fitting for them to fit into beast type than the Monstrosity type. even then i would rather have both. type gets really wierd if you also have ravnica and symic rangers modifying their pets.
There is also alot of confusion arround new Types for other standard PC races. This effects spells, causes conflicts with Primeval awareness, even affects the usefulness of favored enemy.
thoughts? oppinons? anyone else ready to sign a pettition to restore both Tressym creatures and have WOTC re-evaluate type changes?
I think the crag cat was changed mostly to prevent druids (read Circle of the Moon) from gaining nondetection and spell turning at 2nd level. I think that it might be better for WotC to consider more stat block within the mechanics of class features rather than reusing monster stat blocks as options for player features.
The small movement towards PC races (and now a drake companion) being things that interact with Primeval Awareness bother me, which I'm sure I'm in the huge minority of people that even care. But it does.
The idea that "beasts are boring" bothers me too. Using DND Beyond to filter monsters of medium size or smaller, at CR 1/4 or less, but NOT a beast reveals that there is a lot of room for interesting things to be done at those size sand CRs that can be fun and interesting while mechanically sound and useful. In a world with dragons and wizards, I see no reason why a cat shouldn't have darkvision and be proficient in both athletics and acrobatics, or why other interesting mechanics can't exist for beasts. I would point us all towards this section of the Dungeon Master's Guide to see how much official RAW permission and flexibility there is for a DM (perhaps working with a beast master player) to modify, add to, or reimagine a stat block from the Monster Manual. Small changes can do a lot to add to the fun and usefulness of a beast master companion. Example? Sure!
Giant Skunk
Medium beast, unaligned
Armor Class
12
Hit Points
11 (2d8 + 2)
Speed
30 ft., burrow 10 ft.
STR
8 (-1)
DEX
14 (+2)
CON
12 (+1)
INT
2 (-4)
WIS
14 (+2)
CHA
5 (-3)
Saving Throws
Con +3
Skills
Perception +4
Senses
darkvision 30 ft., passive Perception 14
Languages
—
Challenge
1/4 (50 XP)
Keen Smell.
The giant skunk has advantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on smell.
Actions
Bite.
Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 5 (1d6 + 2) piercing damage.
Spray (Recharge 6).
The giant skunk sprays a repulsive and foul smelling liquid from its body. Each creature in a 15-foot cone must make a DC 11 Constitution saving throw or be poisoned for 1 hour. While poisoned this way, any other creature that ends its turn within 5 feet of the creature must make a DC 11 Constitution saving throw or be poisoned until the end of its next turn.
To your point... https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxwqjFF84OJW9uVJfkGwaz3g7zSiUblL_v
If it really was just for moon druids why not alter the creature for an appropriate CR rather than just change its type? Is nondetection really gamebreaking at level 2? Is spell turning (note it only works on Single target savingthrow spells )? Tecnicaly creatures are gated behind the druid having seen Them, should situationalness be a factor?(situational the ranger buzz word)
every time wotc has gone to feature or spell related stat block: unique features and options disapear. My point is i think those uniqe features are important parts of the game. part of what make creatures intresting is their place and use in the world. I think taking it away from players options waters down their significance.
Yes there are balance issues, At the same time JC clearly says People wanted it and they accounted for it. I see the beastmaster restrictions as necessary to get all the goods. I know if i have another dm at the table I actually prefer them to play Druids or BM rangers or summoners because the other players get to see unique and fun monster use.
The comment kind of hints that genaric stat blocks leads to disasisfaction. Hence the change to "monster manual looting." IMO. The problem is WOTC being "wishy washy" and not backing or acounting for what was decided in the past. Possibly broken CR Calculations.
Yes. They "can be more generous" because they know what they're giving us. Translation, we all get the same thing. Super vanilla and plain across the board. No "exploring" the game and character design.
looking at the druid "controls" a druid cant cast spells Period in beast form. this would include nondetection granted by the beast shape. so All they woud get is Spell turning.(single target saves only)
This means a druid cant even cast Dancing lights as deep rothe.
I'd argue that the popularity of the other pet classes (Battle Smith, Wildfire Druid, Creation Bard, etc) and how they all tested well in UA points to the community as a whole having changed their minds about generic stat blocks vs looting the Monster Manual, and that the Tasha Beast Master was a response to that.
Which is neither a good thing or a bad thing in and of itself. The community could have been the ones that were wishy-washy. Or perhaps the people that compose the community nowadays are different than the people who did the playtest for 5e. Or maybe they simply outweigh them. Or maybe they thought they'd be satisfied with one direction and in practice found they generally preferred the other.
Which says absolutely nothing about the viability of the PHB Beast Master vs the Tasha Beast Master. As we've discussed ad nauseum here, the PHB BM is perfectly viable (albeit requiring a high investment ceiling.) But that's besides the point. The point is the community wanted something else and WotC delivered an alternative.
And before people start (Frank,) I'm not saying the PHB Beast Master was bad. But let's not pretend the majority of people weren't dissatisfied with it. Just like we can't pretend that most complaints about the Beast Master as a whole whittled down to a whisper after the release of the Tasha version.
I'm not making a value judgment on the subclass itself. Rather just an observation about the discourse surrounding said subclass and how that guided the design direction of WotC in relation to it.
good point.
Both options are viabale and neither will sastify the entire crowd. beastmaster is divided but this is not a beasmaster thread, its a creature thread................. So going back to the original point. It still seems like a better the game needs better defined Creature types and CR calculations to
Should tryessm be a valid Beast. I think mechanics and at least Forgotten Relms narrative support having two types of tressym.(one beast one monstrosity)
Why does crag cat fit monstrosity over Beast? game definitons lean twards beast. IMO
Player type changes (fey mostly but others are in the works)both affect favored enemy and Primeaval awareness? what are the down sides and benifits?
They are strangely way more conservative about the beast master than they are with the druid, ie no size restrictions on wild shape (just movement speeds beyond walking an cr).I remember asking Mearls about the whole size restriction back when he was still doing the happy fun hours and it basically worry about having a 2 x2 squares of 'permanent' blocker in combat.
🤐😇
I didn’t say anything. 😉
Yeah. I’ve DMed for and played as a ranger having a larger companion (home game). And tactical, it is a huge advantage, even BEFORE the auto dodge errata.
Yes. I think at this “post Tasha’s world” them being “conservative” with the beast options is silly. For a beast master, a druid, an enemy, or a sidekick.
We Have another new mis-type .......Minatare giant space hamsters are monstrosities in the stat block.(according to the new review content videos) This feels like a deliberate anti ranger/druid choice. they literally made the most common beast companion NOT a beast.