Quote Originally Posted by Foxhound438 View Post
as per my original post, giant crab.





Once again, ironic to make this argument when we had to complain for how many years that rangers getting bonuses to tracking and roughing through the wilderness are dead features in campaigns that don't feature tracking and roughing through the wilderness before they fixed that, in this very book. Once again, saying "just use the beast of the land" is the same as saying "just play a fighter", but the question remains, why does the ranger have to be comparatively useless outside of those situations? And they changed a whole pile of ranger features for this, and rangers weren't even so bad at being fighters compared to how useless beast of the sea is when an enemy is merely 15 feet away from the water.
A giant crab has speed parity, 30/30 at which point it makes a pretty lousy water specialist creature as a lot/most of the time specialist creatures will have their specialst speed be higher than the PC average of 30ft. If you want someting that can act in land and water at the drop of a hat, then just pick and deal with a Giant Crab, the stock BM rules allow for that. It's going to be worse in almost every conceivable way, but it won't have that crippling land speed you appear to be looking for in a water option right?

I'm also curious, is this the only example? If that's the case your expectations are based on an exception whereas the beast blocks seem to be trying to generically represent the average abilities of each environment's creatures.


If there is any chance whatsovever that you will be fighting on land any time soon just don't pick the Beast of the Sea, you don't like that ("just play a Fighter!") but at the same time you're taking a specialist creature out of its specialist environment and complaining about its performance (which coincidentally does not map with the Fighter/Ranger comparison you make).