Quote Originally Posted by TigerT20 View Post
Have people considered that both players and characters can do the things that are not the most tactically optimal?

Like has noone here ever had a player that made a choice based entirely off thematics instead of strength? If I wanna play Steve Irwin the Beastmaster, picking Beast of the Land and just saying 'well the crocodile is just a bad swimmer' feels... wrong.

I'm not saying that the Beast of the Sea should be just as good on land as the BotL, but it should still have viability on land, but just not it's full potential. Like... the BotL has in water.
People keep wanting this, but I can't think of a single animal that would actually fit as a justification for this.

Crocodiles aren't amphibious in the D&D sense, they hold their breath and so aren't applicable.

The beast of the sea appears to be based on an Octopus/Giant Octopus middle ground (swim speed of a Giant, land speed of regular, medium instead of small or large). Both of those creatures have abyssmal land speeds, they're Ocotpi, why would they have a competent land speed?

The best argument I can see for this is the frog/Giant frog, they're amphibious and have a more useable swim speed. Problem is their swim speed and land speed are equal, so you'd likely end up with a beast that's mediocre at both at that rate.

There doesn't seem to be any precedent for an amphibious creature that has a high swim speed but competent land speed and it doesn't even make sense for there to be one...