PDA

View Full Version : (Another) Martial Power Excerpt Up, Beastmaster Ranger



Asbestos
2008-10-20, 01:13 AM
Found here. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20081020a)

Not sure how I feel about it, but awesome that animal companions are back... sorta.

Jokes
2008-10-20, 01:39 AM
Beast Mastery: You gain a beast companion, chosen from one of these categories: bear, boar, cat, lizard, raptor, serpent, spider, or wolf.

It looks like 4e has just peaked on awesomeness. It's all downhill from here.

Asbestos
2008-10-20, 01:43 AM
It looks like 4e has just peaked on awesomeness. It's all downhill from here.

I feel like they must mean the conventional definition of a raptor. You know, a predatory bird.

Townopolis
2008-10-20, 01:43 AM
While that is awesome, it's also a reference to birds.

So slightly less awesome than it could be.

The New Bruceski
2008-10-20, 01:48 AM
Dinosaurs are birds...

EDIT: yes, I know, technically yadda yadda. If it means I can have a pet Deionychus they're birds, dangit!

Asbestos
2008-10-20, 01:50 AM
Dinosaurs are birds...

Rather, birds are dinosaurs.


Edit: Just call it a lizard, it says you could have a drake if you went that route. And honestly, aren't drakes pretty much dinosaurs?

Jokes
2008-10-20, 02:00 AM
*crawls into the corner, sobbing*

There's gonna be raptors *twitch* raaptoors...

Also the picture with the dragonborn, bear and an army of raptors probably got me thinking it.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-20, 04:30 AM
I feel like they must mean the conventional definition of a raptor. You know, a predatory bird.

I hope it's a bird - a hawk companion would be very nice. Also, dinosaurs could be considered lizards, no?

Anyway, as seems par for the course so far with 4E, they're cool mechanics, with abysmally stupid fluff text. Well, I haven't played a ranger yet, guess I'll wait a few weeks for that book now.

Lord Herman
2008-10-20, 04:37 AM
This is, as the French say, le awesome.

I'm happy with the way they decided to handle the different kinds of animals; broad categories you can fill in yourself. No longer can the DM stop me by claiming there are no stats for a sheep companion!

Kaiyanwang
2008-10-20, 05:31 AM
/equip fire resistance gear

I wouldn't return on old grievances, but similarities are increasing each time

http://www.wowwiki.com/Beast_Mastery

NPCMook
2008-10-20, 05:46 AM
/equip fire resistance gear

I wouldn't return on old grievances, but similarities are increasing each time

http://www.wowwiki.com/Beast_Mastery

I see what you did thar! and its not funny.

Its not like they couldn't technically do it before, and I remember a prehistoric druid in an old issue of dragon along with several dinosaur races for 3.x. The point is everyone takes ideas from everyone, get used to it. Its not like a Ranger in 3.x couldn't have a "Raptor" also... They must have stolen it from wow then also, right?

For once I'd like someone to say, "DnD did it first," instead of "they are just copying WoW."

Kaiyanwang
2008-10-20, 05:59 AM
To clear up: I think that a Ranger with a pet is funny, and so a good idea.

And is not a matter of Dinosaur or not dinosaur. I start to see more and more a Marksmanship, Survival* and Beastmaster Hunter. :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, I'm only shocked each time for similitudes, from the time I've seen the eyes of the "Eladrins" (sorry for the """ but for me Eladrins are CG ousiders from Arborea)

*Edit: survival would need more something like abilities on traps or similar.
And again, it does not mean it wouldn't be fun.

KnightDisciple
2008-10-20, 05:59 AM
I see what you did thar! and its not funny.

Its not like they couldn't technically do it before, and I remember a prehistoric druid in an old issue of dragon along with several dinosaur races for 3.x. The point is everyone takes ideas from everyone, get used to it. Its not like a Ranger in 3.x couldn't have a "Raptor" also... They must have stolen it from wow then also, right?

For once I'd like someone to say, "DnD did it first," instead of "they are just copying WoW."

Ahem. *Points out 3.5 Druid shapeshifting/tanking, spellcasting for both damage and healing*
That's all.

NPCMook
2008-10-20, 06:03 AM
Ahem. *Points out 3.5 Druid shapeshifting/tanking, spellcasting for both damage and healing*
That's all.

Touchč

FOCL.

archmage45
2008-10-20, 06:08 AM
Can someone please be kind and post it for those of us stuck at work behind firewalls? Thanks!

Raz_Fox
2008-10-20, 06:33 AM
If you heard something, that was just my triumphant scream of joy. I love animal companions, and missed them a lot. :smallbiggrin:

Now I'm sad I lack the funds to obtain Martial Power until the 25th of December. :smallfrown:

bosssmiley
2008-10-20, 06:39 AM
Hmm. Looks like a definite improvement on the 3E animal companion rules from what little I can see. Set base stats with minor type differences. No more rooting through MMn+1 to find the cheesiest creatures possible. :smallamused:

The level one powers seem interestingly suggestive too. They nicely evoke the 'double team' aspect of the beastmaster archetype.


Predator Strike
Ranger Attack 1
Your enemy focuses its attention on you, allowing your beast to attack.
At-Will Beast, Martial
Standard Action Melee beast 1
Target: One creature adjacent to you
Attack: Beast’s attack bonus vs. AC
Hit: 1[B] + beast’s Strength modifier + your Wisdom modifier damage.
Increase damage to 2[B] + beast’s Strength modifier + your Wisdom modifier at 21st level.


So you hit people in the face with you animal companion? :smallconfused:

Jokes
2008-10-20, 06:46 AM
So you hit people in the face with you animal companion? :smallconfused:

Gonna have to get me a gator. (http://www.topatoco.com/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=TO&Product_Code=RB-GATORFIGHT&Category_Code=RB)

Person_Man
2008-10-20, 09:08 AM
Spoiler please?

Some of us are blocked at work.

Thanks.

Lord Herman
2008-10-20, 09:12 AM
It looks like 4e has just peaked on awesomeness. It's all downhill from here.

Don't be so sure. We still need stats for robot sharks who can fight those raptors.

Edit: Spoiler coming up. One moment please.

Suzuro
2008-10-20, 09:14 AM
The Ranger

“Keeping a pet lets me bring the wild with me wherever I go. I like it. Keeps me warm inside. Oh, and the wild packs one hell of a bite.”

Rangers are people of the wild frontier. They are bold wanderers who face the dangers that keep common folk living within walled cities and traveling along well-used roads. Every ranger is also a killer who uses terrain, keen senses, and hunt-honed strikes to end threats quickly. Where rangers differ is in their execution.

Blade and bow are typical ranger tools, but a few rangers forge a deeper alliance with the wilderness. Such a ranger calls a beast as a friend and a weapon. The affinity for a beast might grow from one of many roots. Legend speaks of those raised among wild animals, as well as of those with a supernatural affinity for wild creatures. For enigmatic reasons, Melora blesses a few with such a connection to animals. More often, however, a young would-be ranger befriends a beast or raises it from pup to warrior.

This chapter presents and supports such rangers. It also provides other sorts of rangers with ways to shape their capabilities. In it, you’ll find the following:

* New Ranger Build: The beastmaster ranger build lets you bring to life the fantasy archetype of hero and pet as a fighting unit.


* New Class Feature: Every beastmaster needs, well, a beast to master, and that’s what the Beast Mastery class feature is all about. You can choose a beast companion from one of eight categories designed to fit the style of your character.


* New Ranger Powers: With a specialized build such as the beastmaster, a whole new assortment of exploits is required. Rangers who favor the blade or the bow have new power options in this chapter, too.


* New Paragon Paths: Focus your training in one of a dozen ways, even shoring up quirky ranger techniques such as throwing or using a crossbow. Focus on slaying a particular sort of enemy, absorb the magic of the lands you walk, or run with the pack.

Beastmaster Ranger

A deadly hunter, you specialize in double-teaming your enemies with the aid of a beast companion. Your beast is an extension of you, and thereby it is an invaluable member of your group. No other is needed to help you flank your quarry. Melee combat with the aid of your beast is your focus, so you favor Strength.

You count on Dexterity for your AC and occasional ranged attacks, so your secondary focus is on that ability score. Wisdom, your tertiary ability score, makes you better at the Perception skill and gives you an edge with many ranger powers. The Beast Mastery class feature is designed to complement this build.

Suggested Feat: Lethal Hunter (Human feat: Improved Initiative)
Suggested Skills: Athletics, Heal, Nature, Perception, Stealth
Suggested At-Will Powers: circling strike,* predator strike*
Suggested Encounter Power: synchronized strike*
Suggested Daily Power: partnered savaging*
*New option presented in Martial Power

New Class Feature

The Beast Mastery class feature is available to any ranger who wishes to gain a loyal beast companion. To select this class feature, you must give up the Prime Shot class feature, and you do not select either the Archer Fighting Style or the Two-Blade Fighting Style.

Beast Mastery: You gain a beast companion, chosen from one of these categories: bear, boar, cat, lizard, raptor, serpent, spider, or wolf. These categories do not describe specific animals, but rather groups of similarly themed creatures in the D&D world. You decide the creature’s relevant details—its species, physical details, and so forth—making sure they are appropriate for its category and the campaign.

For example, if your character hails from a swampy region, your lizard companion might be a crocodile. The lizard companion of a ranger from a different region might be a giant monitor lizard or a drake. A beast companion’s species doesn’t affect its game statistics, which are based on its category and level.

You and your beast companion work so well together that the creature is almost an extension of you. Using your actions in combat, you control your beast companion by issuing it commands (see “Commanding a Beast Companion”).

Beast Mastery also alters your Hunter’s Quarry class feature. When you use Hunter’s Quarry, your quarry can be either the enemy nearest to you that you can see or the enemy nearest to your beast companion that you can see. You or your beast companion can deal the extra damage from Hunter’s Quarry, but only one of you can deal this extra damage per round.

Your beast companion is considered a creature and an ally and can be affected by powers. A cleric can heal it with healing word, a warlord can give it a melee basic attack with commander’s strike, and so forth. You and your beast companion are treated as separate creatures.

You can have only one beast companion at a time. You can dismiss your beast companion at any time, but gaining a new one isn’t a simple task (see “Gaining a New Companion”). The link between a ranger and his or her beast companion is not one of master and servant but of two close friends.

As part of the training you underwent that allowed you to form a close bond with a beast, you learned the Raise Beast Companion ritual, which allows you to raise your companion from the dead, even if you are otherwise unable to master and perform rituals.

Level 1 At-Will Exploits
Predator Strike
Ranger Attack 1
Your enemy focuses its attention on you, allowing your beast to attack.
At-Will Beast, Martial
Standard Action Melee beast 1
Target: One creature adjacent to you
Attack: Beast’s attack bonus vs. AC
Hit: 1[B] + beast’s Strength modifier + your Wisdom modifier damage.
Increase damage to 2[B] + beast’s Strength modifier + your Wisdom modifier at 21st level.

Level 1 Encounter Exploits
Enclose the Prey
Ranger Attack 1
Your beast companion circles your quarry, gaining a better position just before you strike.
Encounter Beast, Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon (beast 1)
Target: One creature designated as your quarry
Effect: Before the attack, both you and your beast companion can shift 2 squares.
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Beast: If your companion is a cat, a spider, or a wolf, the attack deals extra damage equal to your Wisdom modifier.

Level 1 Daily Exploits
Driving the Quarry
Ranger Attack 1
You fiercely assault your quarry, and your beast companion compels that same foe forward.
Daily Beast, Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon (beast 1)
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Miss: Half damage.
Effect: If the target is your quarry, you slide it 2 squares and slide your beast companion 2 squares, ending its movement adjacent to the target. If the target is your quarry and is also bloodied, you instead slide the beast 4 squares.
Beast: If your companion is a cat, a raptor, a spider, or a wolf, you can slide it to any square adjacent to the target.




Here ya go, sorry if it's a bit jarbled...


-Suzuro

Lord Herman
2008-10-20, 09:16 AM
Ranger summary
The Ranger
“Keeping a pet lets me bring the wild with me wherever I go. I like it. Keeps me warm inside. Oh, and the wild packs one hell of a bite.”

Rangers are people of the wild frontier. They are bold wanderers who face the dangers that keep common folk living within walled cities and traveling along well-used roads. Every ranger is also a killer who uses terrain, keen senses, and hunt-honed strikes to end threats quickly. Where rangers differ is in their execution.

Blade and bow are typical ranger tools, but a few rangers forge a deeper alliance with the wilderness. Such a ranger calls a beast as a friend and a weapon. The affinity for a beast might grow from one of many roots. Legend speaks of those raised among wild animals, as well as of those with a supernatural affinity for wild creatures. For enigmatic reasons, Melora blesses a few with such a connection to animals. More often, however, a young would-be ranger befriends a beast or raises it from pup to warrior.

This chapter presents and supports such rangers. It also provides other sorts of rangers with ways to shape their capabilities. In it, you’ll find the following:

* New Ranger Build: The beastmaster ranger build lets you bring to life the fantasy archetype of hero and pet as a fighting unit.

* New Class Feature: Every beastmaster needs, well, a beast to master, and that’s what the Beast Mastery class feature is all about. You can choose a beast companion from one of eight categories designed to fit the style of your character.

* New Ranger Powers: With a specialized build such as the beastmaster, a whole new assortment of exploits is required. Rangers who favor the blade or the bow have new power options in this chapter, too.

* New Paragon Paths: Focus your training in one of a dozen ways, even shoring up quirky ranger techniques such as throwing or using a crossbow. Focus on slaying a particular sort of enemy, absorb the magic of the lands you walk, or run with the pack.

Beastmaster Description
Beastmaster Ranger
A deadly hunter, you specialize in double-teaming your enemies with the aid of a beast companion. Your beast is an extension of you, and thereby it is an invaluable member of your group. No other is needed to help you flank your quarry. Melee combat with the aid of your beast is your focus, so you favor Strength.

You count on Dexterity for your AC and occasional ranged attacks, so your secondary focus is on that ability score. Wisdom, your tertiary ability score, makes you better at the Perception skill and gives you an edge with many ranger powers. The Beast Mastery class feature is designed to complement this build.

Suggested Feat: Lethal Hunter (Human feat: Improved Initiative)
Suggested Skills: Athletics, Heal, Nature, Perception, Stealth
Suggested At-Will Powers: circling strike,* predator strike*
Suggested Encounter Power: synchronized strike*
Suggested Daily Power: partnered savaging*
*New option presented in Martial Power

New Class Feature
The Beast Mastery class feature is available to any ranger who wishes to gain a loyal beast companion. To select this class feature, you must give up the Prime Shot class feature, and you do not select either the Archer Fighting Style or the Two-Blade Fighting Style.

Beast Mastery: You gain a beast companion, chosen from one of these categories: bear, boar, cat, lizard, raptor, serpent, spider, or wolf. These categories do not describe specific animals, but rather groups of similarly themed creatures in the D&D world. You decide the creature’s relevant details—its species, physical details, and so forth—making sure they are appropriate for its category and the campaign.

For example, if your character hails from a swampy region, your lizard companion might be a crocodile. The lizard companion of a ranger from a different region might be a giant monitor lizard or a drake. A beast companion’s species doesn’t affect its game statistics, which are based on its category and level.

You and your beast companion work so well together that the creature is almost an extension of you. Using your actions in combat, you control your beast companion by issuing it commands (see “Commanding a Beast Companion”).

Beast Mastery also alters your Hunter’s Quarry class feature. When you use Hunter’s Quarry, your quarry can be either the enemy nearest to you that you can see or the enemy nearest to your beast companion that you can see. You or your beast companion can deal the extra damage from Hunter’s Quarry, but only one of you can deal this extra damage per round.

Your beast companion is considered a creature and an ally and can be affected by powers. A cleric can heal it with healing word, a warlord can give it a melee basic attack with commander’s strike, and so forth. You and your beast companion are treated as separate creatures.

You can have only one beast companion at a time. You can dismiss your beast companion at any time, but gaining a new one isn’t a simple task (see “Gaining a New Companion”). The link between a ranger and his or her beast companion is not one of master and servant but of two close friends.

As part of the training you underwent that allowed you to form a close bond with a beast, you learned the Raise Beast Companion ritual, which allows you to raise your companion from the dead, even if you are otherwise unable to master and perform rituals.

Powers:
Predator Strike
Ranger Attack 1
Your enemy focuses its attention on you, allowing your beast to attack.
At-Will * Beast, Martial
Standard Action * Melee beast 1
Target: One creature adjacent to you
Attack: Beast’s attack bonus vs. AC
Hit: 1[B] + beast’s Strength modifier + your Wisdom modifier damage.
Increase damage to 2[B] + beast’s Strength modifier + your Wisdom modifier at 21st level.

Enclose the Prey
Ranger Attack 1
Your beast companion circles your quarry, gaining a better position just before you strike.
Encounter * Beast, Martial, Weapon
Standard Action * Melee weapon (beast 1)
Target: One creature designated as your quarry
Effect: Before the attack, both you and your beast companion can shift 2 squares.
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Beast: If your companion is a cat, a spider, or a wolf, the attack deals extra damage equal to your Wisdom modifier.

Driving the Quarry
Ranger Attack 1
You fiercely assault your quarry, and your beast companion compels that same foe forward.
Daily * Beast, Martial, Weapon
Standard Action * Melee weapon (beast 1)
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Miss: Half damage.
Effect: If the target is your quarry, you slide it 2 squares and slide your beast companion 2 squares, ending its movement adjacent to the target. If the target is your quarry and is also bloodied, you instead slide the beast 4 squares.
Beast: If your companion is a cat, a raptor, a spider, or a wolf, you can slide it to any square adjacent to the target.

Edit: D'oh! Simu'd!

KnightDisciple
2008-10-20, 09:53 AM
Don't be so sure. We still need stats for robot sharks who can fight those raptors.

Edit: Spoiler coming up. One moment please.

More accurately, we need stats for:
Sharks with frikkin' laser beams
Bears with Laser Eyes

Person_Man
2008-10-20, 10:19 AM
Thanks Suzuro and Lord Herman for the spoilers.

Reading through it, this seems like a bad idea. Having a second mini-PC that you control will only lead to brokenness. It gives you an action advantage. It gives you battlefield control. It gives you another way to deal damage. It gives you a damage sponge to act as a defender. It didn't work well in 3.5, and I doubt it will work well in 4E.

LCR
2008-10-20, 10:49 AM
It does seem to be necessary to be near your pet, though. Which means you can't have him attack archers, while you finish off brutes. Flying creatures (eagles etc) won't make much sense either since they would still have to be near you, which negates their primary advantage (flight).
All in all, it sounds a bit boring to me. It reads as if the ranger became some sort of mini-warlord, only you can exclusively command your companion.

TwystidMynd
2008-10-20, 11:04 AM
/equip fire resistance gear

I wouldn't return on old grievances, but similarities are increasing each time

http://www.wowwiki.com/Beast_Mastery

Even if 4e copied off of WoW, we all know that WoW copied off of the original The Beastmaster (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083630/) which was, of course, based off of the even originaler (new word of the day!)The Beast Master (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_Master).

The point is, of course, that the concept of a humanoid having a kinship with beasts is not really unique. If that's what your argument is, then it's a rather insightless. Please enlighten me if I'm missing a bigger picture.

Sure, 4e may not be original in its implementation, but that doesn't mean that you're right to compare it to WoW in a dismissive way. It'd be far more productive to comment on the actual content of the article, rather than meaninglessly posting a comparison which you yourself claimed you'd "rather not return on."

With regards to the article...
Personally, I've always felt that the bow-specialist, two-weapon fighting ranger, the spell casting ranger, and the pet-oriented ranger of 3.0 were all very different archetypes that were unartistically clumped together into a single loosely-tied-together class. I'm happy with the spin 4e has put on the class: regardless of whether you're a TWF/bow/pet ranger, you're a ranger, but you are never confused with the other types of rangers. You're distinct in your skills, but still can claim to belong to the same class. I don't really have time to get into how the balance of this new aspect feels, but it certainly looks nifty.

skywalker
2008-10-20, 11:11 AM
It does seem to be necessary to be near your pet, though. Which means you can't have him attack archers, while you finish off brutes. Flying creatures (eagles etc) won't make much sense either since they would still have to be near you, which negates their primary advantage (flight).
All in all, it sounds a bit boring to me. It reads as if the ranger became some sort of mini-warlord, only you can exclusively command your companion.

Yes, what he said. I actually found it quite lackluster. So far, it's either "your companion attacks instead of you" or "you get to attack and your companion tacks on something marginally cool. I grant that it might give you an advantage against monsters who attack the closest target, by giving them another target to worry about, but besides that, it honestly made me say "meh," especially as far as how powerful it looks.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-20, 11:19 AM
Thanks Suzuro and Lord Herman for the spoilers.

Reading through it, this seems like a bad idea. Having a second mini-PC that you control will only lead to brokenness. It gives you an action advantage. It gives you battlefield control. It gives you another way to deal damage. It gives you a damage sponge to act as a defender. It didn't work well in 3.5, and I doubt it will work well in 4E.

I'll give you battlefield control, but action advantage?
You use your action for the creature to do stuff in math that is called zero sum.
1-1=0.
You don't get another action for the creature: you are the creature's actions.

It does give damage sponge I guess. But remember, it can't hit without you not using your action to do something else.

Fishy
2008-10-20, 11:21 AM
Reading through it, this seems like a bad idea. Having a second mini-PC that you control will only lead to brokenness. It gives you an action advantage. It gives you battlefield control. It gives you another way to deal damage. It gives you a damage sponge to act as a defender. It didn't work well in 3.5, and I doubt it will work well in 4E.


You and your beast companion work so well together that the creature is almost an extension of you. Using your actions in combat, you control your beast companion by issuing it commands (see “Commanding a Beast Companion”).

We can't really tell from just the partial spoiler, but that looks to me like maybe there won't be an action advantage this time.

Asbestos
2008-10-20, 11:25 AM
Thanks Suzuro and Lord Herman for the spoilers.

Reading through it, this seems like a bad idea. Having a second mini-PC that you control will only lead to brokenness. It gives you an action advantage. It gives you battlefield control. It gives you another way to deal damage. It gives you a damage sponge to act as a defender. It didn't work well in 3.5, and I doubt it will work well in 4E.

I'm not sure it gives an action advantage (which was my biggest worry) because of the word choice here...
"You and your beast companion work so well together that the creature is almost an extension of you. Using your actions in combat, you control your beast companion by issuing it commands (see “Commanding a Beast Companion”)."

Edit: Darn you Fishy!


And yes, it gives another way to deal damage, but sort of takes away another. Sure you can still pick TWF powers, but your off-hand weapon is now... an off hand weapon and not another broadsword. You can also pick Archer-type powers, but no longer have prime shot. Also, you're now slightly squishier than a TWF ranger but still a melee guy. And, it still seems to take the same amount of actions to use that other damage source. The big difference is that it'll be easier for the ranger to get combat advantage. Also, there's more to defenders than HPs, but I see your point. If it turns out the beast can't make OAs or something, then it might be more balanced (though we really have no idea yet how unbalanced it may/may not be)

I'm interested in seeing how the choice of beast affects the build. My guess is that Bears and Boars act more like Brutes (high HP, low AC, high Damage) and that the others are more like soldiers/skirmishers (higher AC, lower damage, lower HP, higher movement)

Clearly all drow will have black cats or spiders though. :smalltongue:

Person_Man
2008-10-20, 12:01 PM
OK, so if you need to spend your Standard Action in order for your animal to take a Standard Action, then clearly there's no action advantage. But I'm guessing that you'll need to spend your Standard Action in order to get your animal to use your/its Standard Action Power. I'm guessing that your animal can still move around and/or make basic attacks even if you're doing other things, or at least follow a pre-determined training (guard me). And even if it can't (rendering it ridiculously unrealistic), it can still presumably make an Opportunity Attack.

But at this point, its just idle speculation.

Lord Herman
2008-10-20, 12:54 PM
Take a look at the Figurines of Wondrous power from the Adventurer's Vault. Unless I'm very much mistaken, animal companions will be controlled in much the same way as the critters from the figurines. You can use one of your actions to 'command' your critter to use that same type of action. A move action to make it move, a standard action to make it attack, etc. The only difference is that animal companions can also take actions as part of certain Ranger powers.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-20, 12:59 PM
Clearly all drow will have black cats or spiders though. :smalltongue:

Black cats? Isn't that Witches and old ladies?

Hzurr
2008-10-20, 01:12 PM
Black cats? Isn't that Witches and old ladies?

I think he was making a Drizz't reference. I think Drizz't has a black Panther? Leopard? Some big cat, but it's black.

Asbestos
2008-10-20, 01:14 PM
Black cats? Isn't that Witches and old ladies?
I was thinking something like Guenhwyvar though I suppose a figurine of wondrous power works better.

I have a friend who will probably take 'bear' and have it be a gorilla. He's got a Minotaur ranger. I think he's going for animal-like humanoid with humanoid-like animal.

RTGoodman
2008-10-20, 01:29 PM
I think the way this is balanced is that the Beastmaster Ranger is EXACTLY THE SAME AS EVERY OTHER RANGER.* The only difference is that your weapon is called a "Boar" instead of a longsword, or a "Raptor" instead of a longbow.

Seriously, you make basically use your same actions to make the same attacks that do the same damage and impose the same sorts of effects.

I don't particularly LIKE it, but I don't think it's unbalancing at all either. From me, it's just a bit "meh." :smallsigh:


*I mean, even if your pet dies, you get to be able to cast the ritual to raise it without having to even be able to learn rituals. If there's any part I DON'T like about this, it's that I feel THAT PART at least is too much like a video game (not a particular game, just a VG in general) and, to me, is silly.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-20, 02:26 PM
I think this is an interesting way to deal with Pets, and I think it works pretty well. It allows the Ranger to act like a Martial Controller (if Beasts can do OAs and grant CA) without worrying about 3e Pet Problems.

Interestingly, the Beastmaster Ranger seems to be a good candidate for dipping into TWF Ranger powers. Unfortunately, it seems like WotC is still keeping a lid on ranged-focus characters (because a workable Beastmaster with a Longbow might be a little too good, I guess).

So far, WotC seems to be doing an OK job with providing flavor in 4e without losing the simplicity of the mechanics.

Jayabalard
2008-10-20, 02:27 PM
Sure, 4e may not be original in its implementation, but that doesn't mean that you're right to compare it to WoW in a dismissive way. I don't really see any actual comparison between the two, let alone a dismissive one.


Take a look at the Figurines of Wondrous power from the Adventurer's Vault. Unless I'm very much mistaken, animal companions will be controlled in much the same way as the critters from the figurines. You can use one of your actions to 'command' your critter to use that same type of action. A move action to make it move, a standard action to make it attack, etc. The only difference is that animal companions can also take actions as part of certain Ranger powers.while that may make it balanced, it seems rather absurd from any sort of verisimilitude standpoint.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-20, 03:03 PM
Interestingly, the Beastmaster Ranger seems to be a good candidate for dipping into TWF Ranger powers. Unfortunately, it seems like WotC is still keeping a lid on ranged-focus characters (because a workable Beastmaster with a Longbow might be a little too good, I guess).

I don't think they're melee-centric; I think Melee (Beast) means in Melee range of your beast, not you. I *think*.


while that may make it balanced, it seems rather absurd from any sort of verisimilitude standpoint.
That's.. always been the case in DnD, dude.

Jayabalard
2008-10-20, 03:07 PM
That's.. always been the case in DnD, dude.Nope; that has not always been the case in D&D.

Lord Herman
2008-10-20, 03:13 PM
I don't think they're melee-centric; I think Melee (Beast) means in Melee range of your beast, not you. I *think*.

Indeed. I can imagine a Ranger with a Raptor companion will function very much like a ranged character.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-20, 03:13 PM
Nope; that has not always been the case in D&D.

Look at the Forgotten Realms. Look at what magic should be able to do, and very rarely to never does. I got pointed to some dude here named Tippy, who made the setting that's the logical endpoint to DnD's caster dominance; An Orwellian nightmare where the casters are unto gods. DnD has not cared about verisimilitude since 1st edition, which is when they actually made little things like "food" matter, and it was boring as hell. They leave it for the players to worry about now. The system hasn't dictated it for 3 editions.

Jayabalard
2008-10-20, 03:27 PM
Look at the Forgotten Realms. Look at what magic should be able to do, and very rarely to never does. I got pointed to some dude here named Tippy, who made the setting that's the logical endpoint to DnD's caster dominance; An Orwellian nightmare where the casters are unto gods.Nothing that you mention absurd from a verisimilitude standpoint.

Besides, everything in here appears to be setting specific, so it's not useful for backing up a "D&D always being X" claim.


DnD has not cared about verisimilitude since 1st edition,I don't agree, but it seems pretty clear that you are saying that 1e did care about verisimilitude... if so, that alone is sufficient to counter your claim.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-20, 03:33 PM
Edit:

Never mind. Not going to let myself get baited into some tangent because some dude doesn't like 4e. That happens too much on ENWorld, and I'm not gonna let it happen to me here.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-20, 03:44 PM
I don't think they're melee-centric; I think Melee (Beast) means in Melee range of your beast, not you. I *think*

Yeah, but check the sample powers. Even "Predator Strike" only targets "one creature next to you." This is "Commander's Strike" all over again, methinks.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-20, 03:46 PM
Yeah, but check the sample powers. Even "Predator Strike" only targets "one creature next to you." This is "Commander's Strike" all over again, methinks.

Hm, true. On the other, the other two powers target "Your quarry", and "One creature". So your special at-will requires melee range for you, but the others may not (I htink Melee Beast1 means 'in range of your beast', anyway).

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-20, 03:47 PM
Hm, true. On the other, the other two powers target "Your quarry", and "One creature". So your special at-will requires melee range for you, but the others may not (I htink Melee Beast1 means 'in range of your beast', anyway).

And the damage for those are in [w] not in [b]

Beast (1) likely means "within 1 square of your Beast"

RPGuru1331
2008-10-20, 03:51 PM
Good point. So if true, that makes them more like FFXI Beastmasters or WAR White Lions then it does WoW Hunters, who melee when forced to, bored, or stupid, not because they're good at it.

Jayabalard
2008-10-20, 03:55 PM
Never mind. Not going to let myself get baited into some tangent because some dude doesn't like 4e. That happens too much on ENWorld, and I'm not gonna let it happen to me here.I made a comment discussing the topic at hand, specifically that if WOTC implemented the beast command in the way that Lord Herman is speculating, it would wind up being balanced (since it gives no action advantage) but absurd in the extreme, since you have to stand still and not attack for your companion to move and attack and vice versa.

I'm not really sure how that qualifies as a tangent, or as baiting, unless Herman is going to take offense at me calling his speculation absurd (which is quite a stretch in my opinion).

DM Raven
2008-10-20, 03:57 PM
Ug, really? A ranger can resurrect his animal companion without needing a ritual or ritual casting? And just how does that work?

You know, I love 4th edition, but it needs to stop trying to be World of Warcraft. There is no reasonable way a ranger can bring things back to life...if your companion dies you grab some divine magic or find a new one.

Still love 4th, but they're pushing it...

Kurald Galain
2008-10-20, 04:03 PM
Ug, really? A ranger can resurrect his animal companion without needing a ritual or ritual casting? And just how does that work?

All in a night's work. It's Not Fun for a player if his character is somehow diminished for longer than five minutes.

Jayabalard
2008-10-20, 04:06 PM
Ug, really? A ranger can resurrect his animal companion without needing a ritual or ritual casting? And just how does that work?I'm curious of the fluff side of that; I personally can't think of anything that would make that make sense... unless you're not really raising it from the dead but getting a new one, but even then, it seems a bit too easy.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-20, 04:06 PM
All in a night's work. It's Not Fun for a player if his character is somehow diminished for longer than five minutes.

They do need a ritual, but they auto learn it and don't need Ritual Casting. Oh well, no big, that's pretty much one easy houserule out. If it's that important to you to be able to rez your pet, take Ritual Casting.

And It's Not Fun for a player to be perma-diminished, which a DM could easily take the opposite route of by not giving significant downtime (Or there just not /being/ significant downtime to be had, simply because the story's moving too fast.)

And even if you didn't need that much downtime, I can see having an attachment to *your* pet. I always get that in MMOs, and I don't even have an in-character reason to be attached.

DM Raven
2008-10-20, 04:07 PM
All in a night's work. It's Not Fun for a player if his character is somehow diminished for longer than five minutes.

Heaven forbid someone sacrafice fun for rules that make sense...

Jayabalard
2008-10-20, 04:24 PM
And It's Not Fun for a player to be perma-diminished, This depends a lot on the particular player involved.


And even if you didn't need that much downtime, I can see having an attachment to *your* pet. I always get that in MMOs, and I don't even have an in-character reason to be attached.I don't really see how making your pet's death trivial helps the situation.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-20, 04:31 PM
This depends a lot on the particular player involved.

I don't really see how making your pet's death trivial helps the situation.

No less trivial then death's been since the removal of System Shock from raise dead.

Which was 3.0. Any good player knows that there's going to be a time when the dice just say "lolzno", and you lose even though you shouldn't have, or lose partially. Really, you're acting like these are new developments when they've been there for 12 or more years.

DM Raven
2008-10-20, 04:39 PM
No less trivial then death's been since the removal of System Shock from raise dead.

Which was 3.0. Any good player knows that there's going to be a time when the dice just say "lolzno", and you lose even though you shouldn't have, or lose partially. Really, you're acting like these are new developments when they've been there for 12 or more years.

So are you saying that the fact that penalties for death have been stupid since the end of second edition and that fact makes it alright for the continued stupid death penalties in 4th?

I just think that bringing anything back from the grave should at least require the use of a cleric or someone who is trained how to accomplish the whole raise dead thing.

erikun
2008-10-20, 04:53 PM
I fail to see how the Ranger being "trained how to accomplish the whole raise dead thing" is stupid. It's atypical, and it's unusual, but I don't find it stupid.

Was it stupid in 3e that Rangers had divine spells? Was it stupid that Druids, with their nature magic, could cast Raise Dead spells?

It seems there's a larger issue with the 4e Raise Dead in general, as opposed to the Ranger's very specific variation of it. If you want Raise Dead to be more restrictive, I don't see why the Ranger version shouldn't be affected by the same houserules as the standard Raise Dead.

Roland St. Jude
2008-10-20, 04:53 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please keep it friendly in here. Address yourself to others' opinions not the others personally.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-20, 04:54 PM
So are you saying that the fact that penalties for death have been stupid since the end of second edition and that fact makes it alright for the continued stupid death penalties in 4th?

I just think that bringing anything back from the grave should at least require the use of a cleric or someone who is trained how to accomplish the whole raise dead thing.

Let me show you something you apparently missed;



They do need a ritual, but they auto learn it and don't need Ritual Casting. Oh well, no big, that's pretty much one easy houserule out. If it's that important to you to be able to rez your pet, take Ritual Casting.

I in fact agree that if the ranger wants his pet back, he can learn Rituals, same as anyone else who wants to bring back a dead friend. I would always, always take it, consequently; because I *would* like my pet back. And I would probably not raise my pet if the story had given it an actually meaningful death in some way, rather then the more standard "You got lucksacked and died."

What I'm actually saying is that death was trivialized long before 4th edition, and that pet death in 3rd edition was either a massive crippling (of an admittedly completely overpowered aspect, so balance-wise, no harm done) in that it was gone for a year and a day (Which is liable to be 'forever', comparing game time to real life time), or due to the sheer length of that, completely glossed over, and a new one will be had in a day of game time. They recognized that if you go draconian, players will *successfully* convince their GMs to ignore the penalty altogether, because the alternative is to leave the class feature off effectively forever.

DM Raven
2008-10-20, 05:08 PM
I never mentioned third edition or pet death penalties in third edition. My problem with this rule is that it makes no sense...a ranger has no reasonable way to bring anything back to life without knowing some sort of ritual. If he needed to use a ritual to get his pet back I would be...more ok with it. But right now it seems like they are just trying to remake the hunter in World of Warcraft...

I like 4th edition better than 3rd in most areas, but this rule irks me a bit.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-20, 05:10 PM
And It's Not Fun for a player to be perma-diminished,
Well duh. But if you can play this either as a plot hook, or as a "fork over 50 gp and boing! he lives again", then the former is more fun; but the rulebooks suggest the latter.

erikun
2008-10-20, 05:16 PM
Um, but the article specifically says that the Ranger learns the "Raise Beast Companion ritual" as part of their training. It doesn't look like 'insert 2 coins to continue' as much as 'I took the time to learn how to resurrect my animal companion, if it is ever needed.'

RPGuru1331
2008-10-20, 05:17 PM
Well duh. But if you can play this either as a plot hook, or as a "fork over 50 gp and boing! he lives again", then the former is more fun; but the rulebooks suggest the latter.

As they've always done with death. If I'm out to revive it, similar to if I want a raise, then the death wasn't a useful plot point anyway. I don't need the rules to tell me to do something I was already planning on doing if so inclined.


I never mentioned third edition or pet death penalties in third edition. My problem with this rule is that it makes no sense...a ranger has no reasonable way to bring anything back to life without knowing some sort of ritual. If he needed to use a ritual to get his pet back I would be...more ok with it. But right now it seems like they are just trying to remake the hunter in World of Warcraft...
I told you already, this is nothing like Hunters due to melee reliance; It's White Lions, Beastlords, or Beastmasters. If you must follow up on this MMORPG reference craze, do so correctly. Second, I already said "If it bothers you, you're the DM; Say they need Ritual casting. I would, since that just seems fair."

Jayabalard
2008-10-20, 05:17 PM
No less trivial then death's been since the removal of System Shock from raise dead.In 3.0, getting around death took a fairly advanced character; raise dead is a 5th level cleric spell, which is a huge deal in some settings. This is a FAR more severe trivialization of death, since the ranger is able raise his pet right out of the gate with no special investment in training. It's something that comes standard issue with each beastlord ranger, no more special than any other ranger ability.

Asbestos
2008-10-20, 05:17 PM
I never mentioned third edition or pet death penalties in third edition. My problem with this rule is that it makes no sense...a ranger has no reasonable way to bring anything back to life without knowing some sort of ritual. If he needed to use a ritual to get his pet back I would be...more ok with it. But right now it seems like they are just trying to remake the hunter in World of Warcraft...

I like 4th edition better than 3rd in most areas, but this rule irks me a bit.

Where do you keep seeing this "doesn't need a ritual" bit? The ranger, by virtue of the Beast Mastery class feature, gains the ability to cast a ritual to bring back his animal companion (I refuse to say 'pet') However, this does not give the Ranger the ability to cast any other ritual w/o taking Ritual Caster first. So, Ranger who spends a lot of time training/working with his beast companion... learns something about bringing said companion back to life, but doesn't bother to learn anything else related to rituals.

Anyway, considering how the Beast Master Ranger is basically dependent on his beast, power-wise, its a mess better than the old rules for gaining a new companion.

Jayabalard
2008-10-20, 05:19 PM
Let me show you something you apparently missed;I don't think that Raven missed it, just disregarded it because the fact that it can be fixed by houseruling is not much of an mitigating factor for poor design, and Raven clearly sees it as poor design (as do I).

Kurald Galain
2008-10-20, 05:32 PM
Second, I already said "If it bothers you, you're the DM; Say they need Ritual casting. I would, since that just seems fair."

Oberoooni, Oberooooooni!

DM Raven
2008-10-20, 05:32 PM
Where do you keep seeing this "doesn't need a ritual" bit? The ranger, by virtue of the Beast Mastery class feature, gains the ability to cast a ritual to bring back his animal companion (I refuse to say 'pet') However, this does not give the Ranger the ability to cast any other ritual w/o taking Ritual Caster first. So, Ranger who spends a lot of time training/working with his beast companion... learns something about bringing said companion back to life, but doesn't bother to learn anything else related to rituals.

Anyway, considering how the Beast Master Ranger is basically dependent on his beast, power-wise, its a mess better than the old rules for gaining a new companion.

It doesn't make sense though...and if you let your pet die you should get nerfed. You should have to spend some time getting it back or retrain another pet. One huge issue I have with 4th is that it rewards players for playing stupid. If your pet dies, whether it be because of bad luck or bad decisions, you should have to suffer a consequence. And an hour of time and 50gp is not a consequence...

And yes, I can easily houserule it out, but I still think it's a bad rule.

Asbestos
2008-10-20, 05:37 PM
It doesn't make sense though...and if you let your pet die you should get nerfed. You should have to spend some time getting it back or retrain another pet. One huge issue I have with 4th is that it rewards players for playing stupid. If your pet dies, whether it be because of bad luck or bad decisions, you should have to suffer a consequence. And an hour of time and 50gp is not a consequence...

And yes, I can easily houserule it out, but I still think it's a bad rule.

Oh most definitely, if the ritual doesn't require like... a gallon of your own blood or something, I'm going to add that in. I also might extend the time to a full 24 hrs. Then again, we have no clue what this specific ritual is yet.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-20, 05:37 PM
Oberoooni, Oberooooooni!

The game errs on the cautious side and it's oberroni to say "If you like it harsher, go harsher"?

My god how people abuse intent. This isn't a gaping design flaw. This is just intent of the designer not precisely syncing up with the intent of a (Not even all players; A singular player, or a subsection of them) player. And it's easy to correct despite being an extremely basic disconnect (a disconnect, I might add, that is *not* a flaw, any more then creating a terrible action game is a flaw when I wanted a game that was, say, drama based)


It doesn't make sense though...and if you let your pet die you should get nerfed. You should have to spend some time getting it back or retrain another pet. One huge issue I have with 4th is that it rewards players for playing stupid. If your pet dies, whether it be because of bad luck or bad decisions, you should have to suffer a consequence. And an hour of time and 50gp is not a consequence...
What reward? There's no reward. You still lose resources. What's the reward for playing stupid here supposed to be?

DM Raven
2008-10-20, 05:50 PM
The reward is a lack of a penalty.

But this argument has journied far from it's original purpose. I was commenting that I didn't like the free "raise pet" ritual a beastmaster suddenly gains through choosing that path. I mentioned that it didn't make sense to me and felt a bit "World of Warcraftish."

It's true we don't know yet know what the ritual to raise a pet will be, but whatever it is, I don't think a ranger should get it for free. He should either take the Ritual Casting Feat (another qualm I have with 4e but please don't get me started) or find someone who specializes in Raise Deading and get them to do it. Or just get another animal companion, death is becoming more and more carebear as the editions progress and I'm not a fan.

That's just my opinion/preference for the class.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-20, 06:02 PM
The reward is a lack of a penalty.
Opportunity cost; Assuming Raise Dead Pet doesn't scale with level at all (which is certainly possible, and insanely stupid), the money could have gone to something useful. You're conflating "No lasting mega penalty" with "No penalty", methinks.


It's true we don't know yet know what the ritual to raise a pet will be, but whatever it is, I don't think a ranger should get it for free. He should either take the Ritual Casting Feat (another qualm I have with 4e but please don't get me started) or find someone who specializes in Raise Deading and get them to do it. Or just get another animal companion, death is becoming more and more carebear as the editions progress and I'm not a fan.
Well, if it weren't dnd, I could probably agree. But it is. It's the system most accurately reflected by "I kick down the door and loot the room". As long as you're that well entrenched as, effectively, a game, I don't see why I shouldn't get extra lives.

DM Raven
2008-10-20, 06:15 PM
Opportunity cost; Assuming Raise Dead Pet doesn't scale with level at all (which is certainly possible), the money could have gone to something useful. You're conflating "No lasting mega penalty" with "No penalty", methinks.


Well, if it weren't dnd, I could probably agree. But it is. It's the system most accurately reflected by "I kick down the door and loot the room". As long as you're that well entrenched as, effectively, a game, I don't see why I shouldn't get extra lives.

I wouldn't call it a mega-penalty to have to employ the help of a ritual caster to bring your dead pet back to life...I would call it reasonable.

I guess I come from a more old-school approach to Dungeons and Dragons. When I play games, I try to create a very immersive world where players feel like they're part of a real, changing, existing world that takes their actions into consideration and produces real consequences for both themselves and the world they inhabit. In my games, "Kicking down the door and looking the room" without any regard to your situation will only work so many times. Enemies will start hearing about your group's exploits and they will begin to set up countermeasures to your usual tactics...soon, you will find kicking down a door will begin workin to your disadvantage because the doors will all have invisible spikes on them. ;p

This is just my style of play, but I think many others out there are like me and enjoy immersive worlds where things "make sense" to them. Raise dead type spells are one of the biggest killers of that feeling regardless of what edition you're playing.

However...it is a game and I see the need for them. Player's shouldn't lose their characters to bad luck, there needs to be a fail-safe. But I'm not ok with giving rangers this type of power unless they're willing to take training to gain it.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-20, 06:24 PM
I wouldn't call it a mega-penalty to have to employ the help of a ritual caster to bring your dead pet back to life...I would call it reasonable.
Effectively permanent loss of a pet, however, is an enormous penalty, particularly if the group simply doesn't have an arcane focused character. I don't care if the ranger needs help or not. I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to say that the Ranger learned one specific ritual and never bothered with any others, but I prefer the idea of having htem learn Ritual Caster anyway, since if you have hte skills to perform a ritual, why would you not give yourself some breadth of ability?


I guess I come from a more old-school approach to Dungeons and Dragons.
[Kick down the door, loot the room] /was/ the old school, dude. It sprung from a minis game, for chrissakes.


When I play games, I try to create a very immersive world where players feel like they're part of a real, changing, existing world that takes their actions into consideration and produces real consequences for both themselves and the world they inhabit. In my games, "Kicking down the door and looking the room" without any regard to your situation will only work so many times. Enemies will start hearing about your group's exploits and they will begin to set up countermeasures to your usual tactics...soon, you will find kicking down a door will begin workin to your disadvantage because the doors will all have invisible spikes on them. ;p
Even if they leave no survivors, as the game style demands? Don't their actions have an effect? ;P

That's pretty much not been a DnD thing. Maybe moreso.. oh I don't know, when Star Wars was new, but not very much moreso.


This is just my style of play, but I think many others out there are like me and enjoy immersive worlds where things "make sense" to them. Raise dead type spells are one of the biggest killers of that feeling regardless of what edition you're playing.
No, raise dead spells don't kill immersion. Their improper application to the game world does, and most game worlds do, because constructing a realisticly built setting where the dead can walk is HARD.


However...it is a game and I see the need for them. Player's shouldn't lose their characters to bad luck, there needs to be a fail-safe. But I'm not ok with giving rangers this type of power unless they're willing to take training to gain it.

Make 'em train. Mine will, if they follow this build (Either as a DM, or *my* rangers that do so as a player's creation). But the rule is hardly bad or wrong because the intents don't match up.

ashmanonar
2008-10-20, 06:29 PM
It looks like 4e has just peaked on awesomeness. It's all downhill from here.

I'm not somebody who freaks out about 4e looking like a video game, but...

Interesting that the list of available animals almost exactly matches the World of Warcraft available pet list.

It's expanded now, but that caught my eye right away.

I'm actually glad they got away from the "look through the monster manual and find a beast that you want as your pet!" It's much easier to balance a distinct set of animals.

DM Raven
2008-10-20, 06:31 PM
I feel like you've graduated to arguing with me for the sake of argument...so I'm going to end and move on to another topic. That being said, I like the direction (minus auto-pet revive) the beastmaster is going and I hope to see more like this in 4th.

And there are always survivors.

DM Raven
2008-10-20, 06:32 PM
I'm not somebody who freaks out about 4e looking like a video game, but...

Interesting that the list of available animals almost exactly matches the World of Warcraft available pet list.

SHHHHHHHHHH DON'T DO IT! We finally closed that can of worms...here we go again...

ashmanonar
2008-10-20, 07:01 PM
SHHHHHHHHHH DON'T DO IT! We finally closed that can of worms...here we go again...

bah, I hadn't read all the way through yet. Honestly, it doesn't bother me. I just found it curious.

Maybe it's because that's kind of a limited set of things that seem plausible?

Colmarr
2008-10-20, 07:34 PM
I'm curious about the action economy.

Assuming that Beastmasters and their companions share the same set of actions, I don't see how the Beastmaster build can viably follow a melee path.

Rangers are strikers, which means that they usually go to the enemy, not vice versa. A Beastmaster ranger has to go to the enemy twice; once for the ranger and once for the companion.

IMO, that requirement for doubling up of move actions is going to "kill" the efficiency of this build unless there's some special dispensation.

DM Raven
2008-10-20, 07:39 PM
I'm curious about the action economy.

Assuming that Beastmasters and their companions share the same set of actions, I don't see how the Beastmaster build can viably follow a melee path.

Rangers are strikers, which means that they usually go to the enemy, not vice versa. A Beastmaster ranger has to go to the enemy twice; once for the ranger and once for the companion.

IMO, that requirement for doubling up of move actions is going to "kill" the efficiency of this build unless there's some special dispensation.

It depends on what sort of actions your commands require. I don't think the article he linked to talks about Commanding a Pet. Also, it seems like some of the powers might include shifting and joint attacks that allow both BM and pet to attack in the same round. I'd wait for the big picture for these questions...

Asbestos
2008-10-20, 10:37 PM
bah, I hadn't read all the way through yet. Honestly, it doesn't bother me. I just found it curious.

Maybe it's because that's kind of a limited set of things that seem plausible?

Well, they're pretty much limiting themselves to terrestrial predators/generally intimidating animals.

Birds that eat meat. Check.
Could easily be fluffed into a bat... or even a stirge probably (or maybe giant flying insect?)

Canids. Check.
Felids. Check.
Bears. Check.
Those three pretty much encompass the 'cool kids' of the Carnivora. All that's really missing are Weasels, Hyenas, and ... Pinnipeds (seals!)
I think that Hyenas could probably, though they aren't, be called a 'wolves' for game purposes, much like a 'lizard' can be a crocodile. Weasels... cat or wolf depending on size?

Snakes and Lizards. Check.
Given how 'lizard' apparently encompasses crocodilians, true lizards, and dinosauria (that's totally what Drakes are, at least most of them) and snakes is well... snakes, this fills in a lot. I can see snakes fluffed as giant centipedes perhaps.

Spiders. Check.
Spiders are a huge part of DnD, I think spider monsters outnumber other arthropod monsters 10:1. These guys are like an auto-include.

Boars. Uh... not sure here actually. I think 4e pushes boar encounters more than the previous editions, so I think this is just a side-effect.



DM Raven: I was waiting to see how long it would take for someone to refer to the Beast Master Ranger as a BM. Nice. Ha... poop jokes.

Lord_Ventnor
2008-10-21, 01:53 AM
All I can say is that I'd like to play a Ranger with a psuedodragon beast companion. Sounds pretty awesome to me. :smallbiggrin:

RTGoodman
2008-10-21, 01:57 AM
Boars. Uh... not sure here actually. I think 4e pushes boar encounters more than the previous editions, so I think this is just a side-effect.

I'm thinking Boar works better for monsters that are specifically resilient and sort of have a natural "rage" - that could include not only boars, but also badgers, warthogs, and stuff like that, and maybe even tiny hippos or something.

Yakk
2008-10-21, 02:23 AM
I'm curious about the action economy.

Assuming that Beastmasters and their companions share the same set of actions, I don't see how the Beastmaster build can viably follow a melee path.

Rangers are strikers, which means that they usually go to the enemy, not vice versa. A Beastmaster ranger has to go to the enemy twice; once for the ranger and once for the companion.

IMO, that requirement for doubling up of move actions is going to "kill" the efficiency of this build unless there's some special dispensation.

Quite possibly, Beastmasters can command their pet to move as part of a move action. :-)

Sebastian
2008-10-21, 03:54 AM
I'll give you battlefield control, but action advantage?
You use your action for the creature to do stuff in math that is called zero sum.
1-1=0.
You don't get another action for the creature: you are the creature's actions.



Yeah, about that, I suppose it use the bag of tricks mechanic (pay a minor action to give the creature one action) what I'd like to know is what happen if you are unconscious or unable to act for some reason? Your pet just stand there like a piece of wood? Can it even do AOs? Can they do things like take guard while you sleep? I bet this is another 4e situation where common sense and believability are thrown out of the windows for the sake of balance.

KnightDisciple
2008-10-21, 04:40 AM
I'm thinking Boar works better for monsters that are specifically resilient and sort of have a natural "rage" - that could include not only boars, but also badgers, warthogs, and stuff like that, and maybe even tiny hippos or something.

Boars aren't nice piggies. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boar) (Not that you said that; more emphasizing your point.)
I think this is especially telling: "If surprised or cornered, a boar (and particularly a sow with her piglets) can and will defend itself and its young with intense vigor. The male lowers its head, charges, and then slashes upward with its tusks. The female, whose tusks are not visible, charges with its head up, mouth wide, and bites. Such attacks are not often fatal to humans, but can easily result in severe trauma, dismemberment, or blood loss."
Trauma, dismemberment, blood loss. Owie.

Colmarr
2008-10-21, 04:49 AM
Quite possibly, Beastmasters can command their pet to move as part of a move action. :-)

This is in fact what I meant by "special dispensation". Something to the effect that "when a Beastmaster ranger takes a move action to move, the Beastmaster's companion can move up X squares as a free action."

Only time will tell, I suppose.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-21, 09:40 AM
I'm curious about the action economy.

Assuming that Beastmasters and their companions share the same set of actions, I don't see how the Beastmaster build can viably follow a melee path.

Rangers are strikers, which means that they usually go to the enemy, not vice versa. A Beastmaster ranger has to go to the enemy twice; once for the ranger and once for the companion.

IMO, that requirement for doubling up of move actions is going to "kill" the efficiency of this build unless there's some special dispensation.

That's actually a fairly good point. Hopefully, something similar to Yakk's suggestion is the way they get around that. I wouldn't mind if they were instead ranged, as that's another way around it.


I'm thinking Boar works better for monsters that are specifically resilient and sort of have a natural "rage" - that could include not only boars, but also badgers, warthogs, and stuff like that, and maybe even tiny hippos or something.
That is an excellent idea, and I will have to remember it.

MartinHarper
2008-10-21, 11:11 AM
TWF rangers get Toughness for free, which is normally a feat. Beastie rangers get a single ritual for free, which is less powerful than the Ritual Casting feat. I don't understand why folks are fine with the former, but have a problem with the latter. Would folks prefer it if Beastie rangers got the Ritual Casting feat for free?


I wouldn't call it a mega-penalty to have to employ the help of a ritual caster to bring your dead pet back to life...I would call it reasonable.

If you lose a pet, you need to employ the help of a ritual caster, such as a Wizard or a Beastmaster Ranger.

Starsinger
2008-10-21, 12:43 PM
There is no reasonable way a ranger can bring things back to life...if your companion dies you grab some divine magic or find a new one.

"This is Carl, my companion. We grew up together and have been together all of our lives."

~Later that day, Carl gets killed in combat.~

"Oh well, I'll just get a new animal companion." :smallwink:

I'll take my Ranger having a spiritual bond with his companion and thus able to call them back from Death's door.

Ealstan
2008-10-21, 01:10 PM
I'm curious about the action economy.

Assuming that Beastmasters and their companions share the same set of actions, I don't see how the Beastmaster build can viably follow a melee path.

Rangers are strikers, which means that they usually go to the enemy, not vice versa. A Beastmaster ranger has to go to the enemy twice; once for the ranger and once for the companion.

IMO, that requirement for doubling up of move actions is going to "kill" the efficiency of this build unless there's some special dispensation.

If it does end up going that way, a hard line action for action trade, then I for one will be fixing it by riding my bear.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-21, 01:55 PM
"This is Carl, my companion. We grew up together and have been together all of our lives."

~Later that day, Carl gets killed in combat.~

"Oh well, I'll just get a new animal companion." :smallwink:

I'll take my Ranger having a spiritual bond with his companion and thus able to call them back from Death's door.

Couldn't you just fake it and get a animal companion with another I behind it?

Carl II is called.
"No, no, he didn't die, he was here all along. weren't you Carl II?"

Asbestos
2008-10-21, 04:59 PM
But this argument has journied far from it's original purpose. I was commenting that I didn't like the free "raise pet" ritual a beastmaster suddenly gains through choosing that path.

I don't think that the beastmaster "suddenly gains" the ability by choosing the path. Its a class feature and ergo can only be picked up at 1st level. 1st level is that magical time when its almost assumed that you've been practicing for a good long while to do what you're doing (which is a big problem I have with 3.x multiclassing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html)) I mean, I don't think that TWF rangers "suddenly" get Toughness or that Fighters "suddenly" have combat superiority because they decided to take up a blade (or two) one day. I think its reasonable that, as part of his training to BE a beastmaster the ranger learned a ritual to bring back that animal he's invested so much time in.

Since we have no idea of the details of this ritual we can't really comment on its cost, but I see nothing unreasonable about them having it.

NPCMook
2008-10-21, 06:09 PM
All this discussion on whether or not the Ranger should be allowed to revive his dead pet with or without ritual casting makes me wonder how you people feel about a Swordmage's Swordbond feature which allows them to recreate a sword from a single piece of his shattered sword... They don't receive Ritual Casting either, yet they are able to magically reconstruct items. You people are really digging to deeply into this.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-21, 06:14 PM
All this discussion on whether or not the Ranger should be allowed to revive his dead pet with or without ritual casting makes me wonder how you people feel about a Swordmage's Swordbond feature which allows them to recreate a sword from a single piece of his shattered sword... They don't receive Ritual Casting either, yet they are able to magically reconstruct items. You people are really digging to deeply into this.

I haven't seen swordmage, but I like that particular idea too. Yay for allowing us to have connections that are backed up in game!

Asbestos
2008-10-21, 06:39 PM
All this discussion on whether or not the Ranger should be allowed to revive his dead pet with or without ritual casting makes me wonder how you people feel about a Swordmage's Swordbond feature which allows them to recreate a sword from a single piece of his shattered sword... They don't receive Ritual Casting either, yet they are able to magically reconstruct items. You people are really digging to deeply into this.
That is an excellent point and I'm interested in seeing DM Raven's thoughts on that.

Colmarr
2008-10-22, 12:18 AM
Ultimately, the swordmage analogy is not quite on point because swordmages are (at least in part) arcane casters and item creation has always been one of the strengths of that D&D stereotype.

Resurrection has not commonly been associated with rangers.

Having said that, I don't have any problem with 4e rangers being able to resurrect their animal companion. The flavour text says:


Blade and bow are typical ranger tools, but a few rangers forge a deeper alliance with the wilderness. Such a ranger calls a beast as a friend and a weapon. The affinity for a beast might grow from one of many roots. Legend speaks of those raised among wild animals, as well as of those with a supernatural affinity for wild creatures. For enigmatic reasons, Melora blesses a few with such a connection to animals. More often, however, a young would-be ranger befriends a beast or raises it from pup to warrior.

My underlining.

I'm happy to accept that the bond allows the ranger to resurrect the companion if it is slain. Divine/nature magic has always been associated with healing and resurrection in D&D.

SadisticFishing
2008-10-22, 01:32 AM
/equip fire resistance gear

I wouldn't return on old grievances, but similarities are increasing each time

http://www.wowwiki.com/Beast_Mastery

But Hunters stole the idea from Rangers in D&D!

*twitch*

Asbestos
2008-10-22, 01:08 PM
But Hunters stole the idea from Rangers in D&D!

*twitch*

Clearly WoW still did it first.
Its like Ambrose Bierce's definition of the Freemasons in "The Devil's Dictionary"


FREEMASONS, n. An order with secret rites, grotesque ceremonies and fantastic costumes, which, originating in the reign of Charles II, among working artisans of London, has been joined successively by the dead of past centuries in unbroken retrogression until now it embraces all the generations of man on the hither side of Adam and is drumming up distinguished recruits among the pre-Creational inhabitants of Chaos and Formless Void. The order was founded at different times by Charlemagne, Julius Caesar, Cyrus, Solomon, Zoroaster, Confucious, Thothmes, and Buddha. Its emblems and symbols have been found in the Catacombs of Paris and Rome, on the stones of the Parthenon and the Chinese Great Wall, among the temples of Karnak and Palmyra and in the Egyptian Pyramids – always by a Freemason.

WoW is responsible for all sword and sorcery fantasy since forever. For example, the Minotaur from Crete is actually a rip off of a Tauren.

Starsinger
2008-10-22, 02:34 PM
WoW is responsible for all sword and sorcery fantasy since forever. For example, the Minotaur from Crete is actually a rip off of a Tauren.

And obviously the four classical elements are based on off of the 4 elements in WoW.

Kletian999
2008-10-22, 02:45 PM
And obviously the four classical elements are based on off of the 4 elements in WoW.

Nature (earth, wind, posion, and lightning here)
Frost
Fire
Shadow
Arcane
Holy

I appreciate the joke but WoW doesn't use the 4 elements model

RPGuru1331
2008-10-22, 02:48 PM
Nature (earth, wind, posion, and lightning here)
Frost
Fire
Shadow
Arcane
Holy

I appreciate the joke but WoW doesn't use the 4 elements model

Um. Shaman Totems. That is all.

Starsinger
2008-10-22, 02:49 PM
Nature (earth, wind, posion, and lightning here)
Frost
Fire
Shadow
Arcane
Holy

I appreciate the joke but WoW doesn't use the 4 elements model

Damage type =/= Elements. The Elements in D&D are: Earth Fire Water Air.
Not Fire, Acid, Cold, Sonic, Positive, Negative, Piercing, Bludgeoning, Slashing.

Hzurr
2008-10-22, 03:15 PM
Damage type =/= Elements. The Elements in D&D are: Earth Fire Water Air.
Not Fire, Acid, Cold, Sonic, Positive, Negative, Piercing, Bludgeoning, Slashing.

In 4E, I believe that now they have:
Acid
Poison
Cold
Thunder
Shock
Fire
Force
Necrotic
Radiant
Psychic

...hmm...am I forgetting any?

Starbuck_II
2008-10-22, 03:17 PM
In 4E, I believe that now they have:
Acid
Poison
Cold
Thunder
Shock
Fire
Force
Necrotic
Radiant
Psychic

...hmm...am I forgetting any?

Shock? No, Lighting is electric from 3.5.
But other than that I think you got therm all.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-22, 03:48 PM
And obviously the four classical elements are based on off of the 4 elements in WoW.

In other news, WOTC is suing Homer for plagiarim...

DM Raven
2008-10-22, 07:12 PM
People, what about a ranger's background would suggest he has the ability to bring things back from the dead? If you love your animal companion and it dies, find someone with ritual casting to bring it back to life. Bringing something back to life should not be a class feature...death is already cheap enough in D&D without them doing this.

*Edit: And warcraft actually stole most of it's ideas from warhammer...which was around much longer.

*Edit: Sorry, not most of its ideas, but a lot of its base ideas from the original strategy games. (Horde vs Alliance, Orcs vs humans) And warhammer stole its stuff from mr JRR...

Asbestos
2008-10-22, 08:30 PM
People, what about a ranger's background would suggest he has the ability to bring things back from the dead? If you love your animal companion and it dies, find someone with ritual casting to bring it back to life. Bringing something back to life should not be a class feature...death is already cheap enough in D&D without them doing this.

*Edit: And warcraft actually stole most of it's ideas from warhammer...which was around much longer.

*Edit: Sorry, not most of its ideas, but a lot of its base ideas from the original strategy games. (Horde vs Alliance, Orcs vs humans) And warhammer stole its stuff from mr JRR...

I think what Colmarr pointed out answers your first question there.

PS: Indeed, Blizzard loves to rip off Games Workshop... I mean, look at everything we've seen for StarCraft/StarCraft 2 and then look at 40k/Dawn of War, nuff said.

The New Bruceski
2008-10-22, 08:32 PM
Well in previous editions rangers had cleric spells. Did you complain about that?

Artanis
2008-10-22, 08:41 PM
PS: Indeed, Blizzard loves to rip off Games Workshop... I mean, look at everything we've seen for StarCraft/StarCraft 2 and then look at 40k/Dawn of War, nuff said.
I swear to god, if I see somebody use the words "Zerg" and "Tyranids" in the same post, no matter what the reason and no matter what they're being used for, things. Will. Die.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-22, 08:43 PM
I think what Colmarr pointed out answers your first question there.

PS: Indeed, Blizzard loves to rip off Games Workshop... I mean, look at everything we've seen for StarCraft/StarCraft 2 and then look at 40k/Dawn of War, nuff said.

I hate to tell you, but there's not much theft from GW in 40k.

SMurfs: Robert Heinlein's work + SPAAAARRTTTAAAA
Tyranids: Robert Heinlein's work
Eldar: Elves IN SPACE.

Terrans: ...Robert Heinlein's work + The American South
Zerg: Robert Heinlein's Work
Protoss: Precurser Archetype.

Notwithstanding that 40k stole everything from everything else. I can list the sources if you'd please ;)

Starsinger
2008-10-22, 08:48 PM
I swear to god, if I see somebody use the words "Zerg" and "Tyranids" in the same post, no matter what the reason and no matter what they're being used for, things. Will. Die.

I much prefer the menace of the word Zerg to the strange... sort of stuffed animal feel of the word Tyranids.

Colmarr
2008-10-22, 09:04 PM
People, what about a ranger's background would suggest he has the ability to bring things back from the dead?

Ironically, the word I have bolded in your post is crucial here.

Each ranger has their own background, and it's entirely appropriate for Beastmaster rangers that they have a special connection with the companion that allows them to do things that other rangers cannot.

To put it more generally, there is nothing about the concept of a Beastmaster ranger that mandates that they must not be allowed to resurrect an animal companion. In fact, giving them the ability to do so ties very heavily with ranger's divine spellcasting in 3.5e.

Asbestos
2008-10-22, 09:13 PM
I hate to tell you, but there's not much theft from GW in 40k.

SMurfs: Robert Heinlein's work + SPAAAARRTTTAAAA
Tyranids: Robert Heinlein's work
Eldar: Elves IN SPACE.

Terrans: ...Robert Heinlein's work + The American South
Zerg: Robert Heinlein's Work
Protoss: Precurser Archetype.

Notwithstanding that 40k stole everything from everything else. I can list the sources if you'd please ;)
Whoa, what? What work of Heinlein's are you referring to for the Zerg? I really, really hope you aren't referring to Starship Troopers. If so, you're dead wrong. Heinlen's bugs were basically ants with technology, they weren't the organic weapons from the terrible movies. Zerg, on the other hand, are living weaponry that make little to no use of technology. They are both (Zerg and Bugs) rip offs of eusocial insects in terms of organization. Protoss might as well be 'elves in space' too, they're just a variation on the theme of "super spiritual and advanced race that's just plain better at everything than everyone else but somehow manages to totally get its ass handed to it" Heck, they even have a splinter race of people almost exactly like them but "dark" and even BETTER than them at everything. The only difference is that in this case "dark" doesn't equate to evil. That's quite progressive of Blizzard.

Phew.
*rant done*

DM Raven
2008-10-23, 01:05 PM
Everyone rips off everyone in Fantasy/Sci-Fi...most ideas are small variations of past ideas. This sort of behavior has existed since the Romans ripped off the Greek's Pantheon of gods. And while Warcraft and Warhammer have similar themes, I think there is a distinct feel to each.

And about the ranger thing...it's fine. There is no right answer to the debate, I don't agree with the call. I argue it's not the traditional ranger, you argue you like variety...fine...4th edition doesn't seem it's much into limits. And oh my god stop comparing it to 3rd edition...I'm tired of this, "You're not with 4th so you're with 3rd" BS...I can like 4e and still criticize some of the rules they make. 3rd edition and 4th edition both have their strengths and weaknesses, stop tying to pigeon hole me. You can like an edition without being a fan boy. I don't fan boy either...both are good.

hamishspence
2008-10-23, 01:12 PM
Aliens, while fitting The Swarm archetype well, didn't carry bioweapons (though early hormaguants closely resembled them.)

So, who did bioweapons- living guns/swords, first?

vicente408
2008-10-23, 02:34 PM
Aliens, while fitting The Swarm archetype well, didn't carry bioweapons (though early hormaguants closely resembled them.)

So, who did bioweapons- living guns/swords, first?

Nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle), I believe.

hamishspence
2008-10-23, 02:39 PM
I was meaning More in the category of carrying a weapon around, the way 2nd ed Nids did. 3rd ed ones mixed natural weapons and extra creatures.

Close equivalent in nature is crab with anemones on each claw.

Artanis
2008-10-23, 03:27 PM
The concept of biotech - of which the mentioned "living weapons" are an example - has been around damn well near forever. Off the top of my head, some specific examples that appeared before Tyranids did are Dune's chairdogs and axlotl tanks and Hyperion's treeships. If you want living personal equipment, Bio Booster Armor Guyver came out before anything even remotely resembling an incarnation of 40K came out.

Jayabalard
2008-10-23, 03:54 PM
And oh my god stop comparing it to 3rd edition...I'm tired of this, "You're not with 4th so you're with 3rd" BS...I can like 4e and still criticize some of the rules they make. 3rd edition and 4th edition both have their strengths and weaknesses, stop tying to pigeon hole me. You can like an edition without being a fan boy. I don't fan boy either...both are good.I agree completely, but I think you're just going to be out of luck. Some people are just going to start foaming at the mouth any time you say something negative about 4e, no matter how well reasoned you make it.


Whoa, what? What work of Heinlein's are you referring to for the Zerg? I really, really hope you aren't referring to Starship Troopers. If so, you're dead wrong. Heinlen's bugs were basically ants with technology, they weren't the organic weapons from the terrible movies. Zerg, on the other hand, are living weaponry that make little to no use of technology. That's probably what he's referring to, since I can't think of anything else even vaguely similar. ST didn't really rule out the bugs using bio weaponry... but me hakes it pretty clear that the bugs do use "real" technology.

Artanis
2008-10-23, 04:04 PM
Funny story about Starship Troopers:

A few years ago, I was browsing the Sci Fi section at a local used books store, and came across some woman with her kid. Her kid really wanted to buy Starship Troopers, and took a copy off the shelf. The mom looked at it for a moment, put it back, and took out a different copy of the book which had a picture from the movie on the cover.

She said, "let's get this one instead. It'll be more like the movie, so it'll be easier to understand."

I'm still not sure how I managed to refrain from falling to the ground laughing.



I agree completely, but I think you're just going to be out of luck. Some people are just going to start foaming at the mouth any time you say something negative about 4e, no matter how well reasoned you make it.
But there wouldn't be nearly as much to talk about if not for all the 4e-related flamefests civilized discussions :smalltongue:

Asbestos
2008-10-24, 02:29 PM
Oh! Didn't want to start a new thread for this, so here goes. Its a paragon path for the Beast Master Ranger. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/excerpts/MartialPower_FeralSpirit.pdf)


This though, just awful.
“He doesn’t like you. I don’t like you either. Watch yourself—
we both bite.”
Seriously? I'm not sure if that could be cheesier.

Also, this picture bugs me...
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/excerpt_feral.jpg

It isn't just because the cat is blue. Its because the woman looks like she's half the height of the dude and doesn't appear to be a halfling. Also, what exchange is going on there? I think that in this case, a sword is not just a sword. :smallwink:

Starsinger
2008-10-24, 02:33 PM
“He doesn’t like you. I don’t like you either. Watch yourself—
we both bite.”
Seriously? I'm not sure if that could be cheesier.

Only one I can think of is "This is my dog. We're both <beep>es"

Also, I have to say, I rather like the Daily for that class.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-24, 03:25 PM
Post it for those of us behind various firewalls?

The New Bruceski
2008-10-24, 04:05 PM
Since Wizards charges money for access now (no matter how we may feel about that), is it still kosher to paste entries in their entirety?

RPGuru1331
2008-10-24, 04:06 PM
Since Wizards charges money for access now (no matter how we may feel about that), is it still kosher to paste entries in their entirety?

Technically, by forum rules which will probably be updated now that I've said that.

hamishspence
2008-10-24, 04:09 PM
Excerpts are free, Dragon and Dungeon are Pay. I wasn't happy, especially given early articles went from Free to Pay, so having delayed too long, couldn't get them.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-24, 05:27 PM
This though, just awful.
“He doesn’t like you. I don’t like you either. Watch yourself—
we both bite.”
Wow, I keep getting amazed by how completely awful all these quotes are. I mean, they've got the MTG flavor department working in the same building, for crying out loud! "Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire!" - that is how you write flavor text.

Asbestos
2008-10-24, 05:55 PM
Post it for those of us behind various firewalls?

Will do, as someone said, its free :smallsmile:
Sorry if it gets jumbled.

Flavor bits
Feral Spirit
“He doesn’t like you. I don’t like you either. Watch yourself—
we both bite.”
Prerequisites: Ranger, Beast Mastery class feature
To most mortals, an animal is a pet or a tool, a companion
or a means to an end. Such creatures provide
food, labor, protection, and even company. Only in
rare cases does the relationship between master and
beast transcend these mundane trappings. Every
beastmaster is an exception to this generality, learning
to become one formidable unit with an animal
that is at once a friend, a guardian, and a weapon.
Beastmasters know that, after the bond is formed, the
capabilities and fate of master and beast are linked.
Beastmasters among many races have nurtured
the mystical connection between master and pet.
They cultivated communication that transcends
speech and approaches telepathy. As such a beastmaster
grew in power, the magic of the world infused
the relationship. It bound the animal and mortal
closer together, driven to do so by the devotion, ritual
connection, and common cause the two shared.
Contact among peoples spread this technique, which
some claim originated with elves.
Elf or not, you’ve managed to foster such a transcendent
relationship with your beast companion.
Although each of you is fiercely independent and
deadly, you share emotions and thoughts. Each knows
when the other is in need. You work in unison to
fell your foes, and even your allies swear you act to
support each other more quickly than any communication
could possibly allow. In time, you might grow
so close as to seem like one incredible being sharing
two bodies (see the Beastlord epic destiny, page 151)

Paragon Path Features
Feral Spirit Path Features
Fearsome Partnership (11th level): While you
are within 10 squares of your beast companion, it
gains a +2 bonus to damage rolls.
Feral Action (11th level): When you spend an
action point to take an extra action, your beast companion
also gains a +4 bonus to attack rolls until the
start of your next turn.
Spirit Link (16th level): When your beast companion
uses second wind, you can choose to spend
one of your own healing surges rather than one of the
beast’s healing surges.

Powers
Feral Spirit Exploits

Feral Diversion Feral Spirit Attack 11
Your companion draws a foe’s attention, allowing you to slip
safely away.
Encounter ✦ Beast, Martial
Standard Action Melee beast 1
Target: One creature adjacent to you
Effect: Before the attack, your beast companion can shift 3
squares.
Attack: Beast’s attack bonus vs. AC
Hit: 2 + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier damage,
and you can shift 3 squares away from the target as a free
action.

[B]Swiftness of Spirit Feral Spirit Utility 12
At your signal, your beast companion is poised for action.
Encounter ✦ Beast, Martial
Minor Action Close burst 5
Target: Your beast companion in burst
Effect: The target takes a move action or gains a +2 bonus
to its next attack roll during this encounter.


Twin-Soul Strike Feral Spirit Attack 20
Whether attacking together or apart, you coordinate your
strike with the attack of your beast companion to maximize
devastation.
Daily ✦ Beast, Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon (beast 1)
Primary Target: One creature
Primary Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Miss: Half damage.
Effect: Your beast companion gains combat advantage
against the primary target for the next attack the beast
makes against it before the end of your next turn. Then
the beast makes a secondary attack.
Secondary Target: The primary target or another creature
Secondary Attack: Beast’s attack bonus vs. AC
Hit: 2[B] + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier damage.
Effect: If the secondary target is different from the primary
target, you gain combat advantage against the secondary
target for the next attack you make against it before the
end of your next turn.

Mewtarthio
2008-10-25, 12:44 AM
...Oh, well, at least it's marginally better than "Victory is easier to acheive if your reach is longer." Of course, it's completely unoriginal, too: Replace that "We both bite" clause with, say, "I have the death sentence on twelve systems."

2xSlick
2008-10-25, 02:03 AM
I hate to tell you, but there's not much theft from GW in 40k.

Terrans: ...Robert Heinlein's work + The American South
Zerg: Robert Heinlein's Work
Protoss: Precurser Archetype.

The American South is proud to represent the Terran Confederacy. This is the most positive image we've ever had in a video game. Granted the only other games we figured prominently in were Gettysburg and Redneck Rampage.

Back on topic, I'm am so tired of boars. They're boring. Where are the damn deer?

I would prefer a create-a-companion system. Sort of like:

1. Does your companion use his head primarily for:
a. biting b. eating c. hitting d. thinking

2 Does your companion use his feet for:
a. clawing b. standing c. grasping d. does not have feet

3. How does your creature move?
a. runs b. hops c. climbs d. flies

Then, the combination of answers gives you your critter's ability sheet/scores as well as a handful of creatures that match that archetype for you to choose from.
And while some of the choices are mutually exclusive (snakes can't claw but they can "grasp), choosing some options would make your companion different from others of it's species. Take for instance, you want to make a gorilla. So you choose he thinks with his head, grasps with his feet, and climbs everywhere to make a basic ape. But lets say you choose biting instead. Your creature takes an intelligence penalty but gains an extra combat ability (I don't know if 4ed still has bite attacks) or chooses eating to make him tougher.

Who wouldn't want to play mad scientist and construct their pets out of spare parts and then magically glue them together to make a real animal?

Starsinger
2008-10-25, 02:31 AM
Your creature takes an intelligence penalty but gains an extra combat ability (I don't know if 4ed still has bite attacks) or chooses eating to make him tougher.

I want a Dolphin so it can shoot sound blasts...

Draco Dracul
2008-10-25, 09:57 AM
I want a Dolphin so it can shoot sound blasts...

I want a monkey with a fling attack that does. . .necrotic(?) damage.:smallwink:

Jayabalard
2008-10-26, 08:51 AM
Wow, I keep getting amazed by how completely awful all these quotes are. I mean, they've got the MTG flavor department working in the same building, for crying out loud! "Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire!" - that is how you write flavor text.I couldn't agree more.