[4e] Beast compainon QC

[Lost_Avatar]

I am looking at the martial power book and I am wondering if it went through any Quality Control. What I mean is this. The animal companion stats don't seem to mean anything, so why have them? Bear has +3 str bonus, but only a +2 to hit. DID WotC forget what Ability scores were for? Half the animals basic attack damage bonus go off Dex but all the ranger powers go off strength, except for the Wolf PP Powers even though the wolf uses Strength for it's damage stat. For the DM's out there would you allow the companions mechanics to correspond to it's stats or would this be considered game breaking?

[Starsinger]

Rogues' base (melee) attack goes on strength even though every rogue power goes off of dex.

Charisma based paladins still have base attack go off of strength...

[Lost_Avatar]

But Cat, Raptor, Serpent, and spider's Attack bonus go off Dex. I don't see the parallel. If you meant the ranger powers going of STR. Then what I was trying to get at was that the Ranger Beast Powers Damage should correspond to the Attack bonus stat.

[Starsinger]

I'm saying base attack/power stat discrepency isn't unheard of.

[Edge of Dreams]

Bear has +3 str bonus, but only a +2 to hit.

Huh, you're right. That struck me as rather odd.

The conclusion I have come to after looking at the stats again is that Beast companions are designed using monster rules for attack bonus and other such derived stats. This guarantees that every ranger's pet will scale the same way as the others, but does feel somewhat awkward, especially since you explicitly get to improve some of your beast's stats every four levels, which does *not* change any of their derived stats like AC and Attack Bonus, only their damage and skill checks. I don't like it, but I don't have a good solution. I've got half a mind to overhaul the entire beast companion stuff anyway with some house rules, but I'm not sure yet exactly how.

[1of3]

Several powers include the beasts strength or wisdom. And then there are skill checks. Those ability scores are not useless.

[Lost_Avatar]

As much as I like Martial Power, it just feels like they rushed it out the door. Now I just got to convince my DM's to let me rebuild the companions so they make since. If the companions are using monster rules, I don't understand how wizards think people can homebrew monsters with a rule set that clunky.

[Asbestos]

Bear has +3 str bonus, but only a +2 to hit. DID WotC forget what Ability scores were for?

No, they did not, they just wanted to balance out the beasts. The bear has a lower to hit only because it has a larger damage dice than the other beasts. The bear's higher damage die is there because bears are strong and it would really hurt to get hit by one. However, if the bear did more damage and had an equal or greater chance to hit than the other beasts it would be unbalanced. Likewise, the bear has a high STR score because a not-strong bear would just be stupid. If you feel a need to weaken your bear so 'it makes more sense' to you than fine, but if you start messing with to-hits and damage you might start unbalancing things.

[Lost_Avatar]

In the case of the bear I feel that it should have STR 10 CON 16, I cant imagine a creature not being proficient with it's natural weapons. With this give it a special ability:

Crushing Blows: Due to the Bear's massive girth, all of the bear's damage rolls are based of of it's CON.

I believe that would give what Wizards had for intent and still keep it having some sense.

[Asbestos]

In the case of the bear I feel that it should have STR 10 CON 16, I cant imagine a creature not being proficient with it's natural weapons. With this give it a special ability:

Crushing Blows: Due to the Bear's massive girth, all of the bear's damage rolls are based of of it's CON.

I believe that would give what Wizards had for intent and still keep it having some sense.

But then you have a bear that isn't any stronger than Joe the Commoner, its equally silly.

[Lost_Avatar]

Being Joe the commoner my self I am 100% confident I can arm wrestle a bear and win!

[Gralamin]

Huh, you're right. That struck me as rather odd.

The conclusion I have come to after looking at the stats again is that Beast companions are designed using monster rules for attack bonus and other such derived stats. This guarantees that every ranger's pet will scale the same way as the others, but does feel somewhat awkward, especially since you explicitly get to improve some of your beast's stats every four levels, which does *not* change any of their derived stats like AC and Attack Bonus, only their damage and skill checks. I don't like it, but I don't have a good solution. I've got half a mind to overhaul the entire beast companion stuff anyway with some house rules, but I'm not sure yet exactly how.

This is correct. Coincidentally, I have just finished auto-generating the stats of every beast companion possible, and arranged into some nice HTML organization so I can go grab whichever one I need at a moments notice.

[Yakk]

As much as I like Martial Power, it just feels like they rushed it out the door. Now I just got to convince my DM's to let me rebuild the companions so they make since. If the companions are using monster rules, I don't understand how wizards think people can homebrew monsters with a rule set that clunky.

So the rules for players are very crunchy. There is lots of math, comparatively, to work out what your PC's to hit bonus, damage bonus, etc is.

For monsters the goal isn't to have a bunch of crunch behind the numbers -- instead, they are assigned attack values based on their level and role (and any other modifier that makes sense, balance-wise).

NPCs don't use PC rules. PC rules are textured, complex, and crunchy. NPC rules are quick, simple and fast to use. PCs like building characters, but DM's don't have time to do it.

Beastmaster Rangers do build up their allies, but their primary focus is on their PC. So their companions use the simplified NPC rules, rather than the complex PC rules.

Your NPC stats are based off the monster's role, level and flavor.

Your NPC attack bonuses are based off the monster's role, level and flavor, but not directly off the stats. Defenses are based off of stats to a certain degree (but not AC).

AC and Attack bonus are too important to leave to flavor. And other defense bonuses are supposed to be close to the baseline.

[Lost_Avatar]

Is there a monster creation guideline somewhere? I remember from the DMG how to adjust a monster LV but I did not think I saw any real monster builder. My original Idea for a ranger was to have his Prime Stat WIS and have the companion do all the work, but power selection for that is kinda limited as well as only about half the ones there synergies with Wolf, which is probably the only companion worth taking, unless you are a dwarf. I also think that there should be companion feats a couple times a tier to give them some diversity. maybe have the spider inflict poison as a encounter/daily on a successful attack. As they are now the pets are very bland. You could always bring back Handle Animal skill and train a few pet tricks like from the previous editions.

[Gralamin]

Is there a monster creation guideline somewhere? I remember from the DMG how to adjust a monster LV but I did not think I saw any real monster builder. My original Idea for a ranger was to have his Prime Stat WIS and have the companion do all the work, but power selection for that is kinda limited as well as only about half the ones there synergies with Wolf, which is probably the only companion worth taking, unless you are a dwarf. I also think that there should be companion feats a couple times a tier to give them some diversity. maybe have the spider inflict poison as a encounter/daily on a successful attack. As they are now the pets are very bland. You could always bring back Handle Animal skill and train a few pet tricks like from the previous editions.

DMG184 is monster creation guidelines. Be warned, their poorly written and nonsensical at times.

[KKL]

DMG184 is monster creation guidelines. Be warned, their poorly written and nonsensical at times.

They're definately not poorly written.

[Lost_Avatar]

I like how in p. 184 of the DMG under Determine Ability Scores specifically states that they help determine Attack bonuses, ability and skill checks, and Armor Class. However, most of the Monsters and all of the companions stats have little to do with Ability Scores.

They're definately not poorly written.

Was that sarcasm?

[KKL]

Was that sarcasm?

No. Aside from tiny discrepencies, they're fine.

[Myatar_Panwar]

If it makes you feel better, don't think about the +2 as a strength bonus, but rather a proficiency bonus. Thats how I thought about it anyway.

But again, it doesn't matter. Monsters use completely different rules than PC's. I'm surprised you were not more alarmed that beasts add your level to attack, rather than 1/2 level, which is standard PC rules.

[Lost_Avatar]

Normally I'd be, but I was looking at the numbers and at lv 30 the companion's ATB is 32-35 without feats. For the PC it was 33; 15 for lv, 3 for proficiency, 9 for max possible ability point stat, and 6 for magic item. Seeing how that was about par I did not have any specific upsets.

[Myatar_Panwar]

Then what are you worried about if the numbers add up?

[Lost_Avatar]

For balance yes ATB does add up. in correlation to it's stat there was definitely some fuzzy math used. But that was just ATB the rest I have not looked at yet.