Forked Thread: TURTLEDOME!: Finnian
[sblock=Yeah...]I wanted to move the discussion, because discussing character options can fill up a lot of the thread. Want to keep the narrative separate.[/sblock]
I think the real issue is whether or not you want to keep Finnian as a Beastmaster. If you keep Erlai, archer is a better fit. If you dump Erlai, you dump a part of your character's story.
Granted, it can happen 'in-story' because Erlai would fade from existence as part of the Origami Rat Event (O.R.E.). Finnian wouldn't remember Erlai, but everyone else would.
---
The second issue is which you enjoy more: the role-playing or having a combat-effective character. If part of the roleplaying aspect of Finnian is that he is functionally incompetent in several areas and you build his stats to represent this, you have to accept the mechanical results of this decision.
If having a character who is good in a fight because of his archery skills conflicts with the 'gee-whiz farm boy' naivete you want to create--well, you've got to figure out if Finnian's story is flexible enough to support him being good at something.
So, the question: Is it less fun when Finnian doesn't do well in a fight?
If the answer is yes, then you need to make the choice that will increase your enjoyment.
I had a friend who always had great ideas for character back-stories, personalities, and so forth. We were playing in a point-based system (ala GURPS), and he spent most of his points on beer-brewing skills for his character, because his back-story involved him being part of the family business before becoming an adventurer. When we'd get into fights, his character was next to useless. He got so frustrated, he'd start screaming and throwing dice and even went so far as to accuse me of favoritism towards the other players, because they fought better. He'd hate playing.
He loved his characters at initial creation. Spent hours coming up with all their foibles and traits, but he never enjoyed playing them for more than a couple of sessions before he'd get so angry at their limitations that he hated them. (I remember he got upset that his paranoid-schizophrenic character wouldn't act like a normal person.)
You've got to make a character that's fun to role-play and game-play.
I think the real issue is whether or not you want to keep Finnian as a Beastmaster. If you keep Erlai, archer is a better fit. If you dump Erlai, you dump a part of your character's story.
Granted, it can happen 'in-story' because Erlai would fade from existence as part of the Origami Rat Event (O.R.E.). Finnian wouldn't remember Erlai, but everyone else would.
---
The second issue is which you enjoy more: the role-playing or having a combat-effective character. If part of the roleplaying aspect of Finnian is that he is functionally incompetent in several areas and you build his stats to represent this, you have to accept the mechanical results of this decision.
If having a character who is good in a fight because of his archery skills conflicts with the 'gee-whiz farm boy' naivete you want to create--well, you've got to figure out if Finnian's story is flexible enough to support him being good at something.
So, the question: Is it less fun when Finnian doesn't do well in a fight?
If the answer is yes, then you need to make the choice that will increase your enjoyment.
I had a friend who always had great ideas for character back-stories, personalities, and so forth. We were playing in a point-based system (ala GURPS), and he spent most of his points on beer-brewing skills for his character, because his back-story involved him being part of the family business before becoming an adventurer. When we'd get into fights, his character was next to useless. He got so frustrated, he'd start screaming and throwing dice and even went so far as to accuse me of favoritism towards the other players, because they fought better. He'd hate playing.
He loved his characters at initial creation. Spent hours coming up with all their foibles and traits, but he never enjoyed playing them for more than a couple of sessions before he'd get so angry at their limitations that he hated them. (I remember he got upset that his paranoid-schizophrenic character wouldn't act like a normal person.)
You've got to make a character that's fun to role-play and game-play.
Last edited:
Atanatotatos
First Post
Uhm, right, sorry for the derailing. Anyway, yes, beast masters do lose prime shot. Read the beginning of the beast mastery class feature paragraph in Martial Power.
JoeNotCharles
First Post
Ah, you're right, I forgot about that. Ok, so the choices are:
Archer ranger: bonus Defensive Mobility feat, can use a missile weapon (with Prime Shot) or a regular+off-hand weapon with multi-attack powers, can't use beast powers
Two-Weapon ranger: bonus Toughness feat, can use a missile weapon (with Prime Shot) or two regular weapons with multi-attack powers, can't use beast powers
Beastmaster ranger: can use a missile weapon (no Prime Shot) or a regular+off-hand weapon with multi-attack powers, can use beast powers
Archer ranger: bonus Defensive Mobility feat, can use a missile weapon (with Prime Shot) or a regular+off-hand weapon with multi-attack powers, can't use beast powers
Two-Weapon ranger: bonus Toughness feat, can use a missile weapon (with Prime Shot) or two regular weapons with multi-attack powers, can't use beast powers
Beastmaster ranger: can use a missile weapon (no Prime Shot) or a regular+off-hand weapon with multi-attack powers, can use beast powers
The beast powers are a bit of a rip-off.
If your animal doesn't use Strength as its primary attack trait, it gets hosed on the powers. (In the end, it's more effective just making a basic attack.)
And your beast cannot attack independent of your character--which has good mechanical reasons, but not good logical or suspension-of-disbelief reasons.
The only real benefit of the beast is the flanking, providing a +2 bonus to your character's attack--but don't you need to some feat to gain the benefit of flanking with ranged weapons? (Otherwise, you have to be adjacent to your enemy and provoke opportunity attacks each time you fire your bow.)
If your animal doesn't use Strength as its primary attack trait, it gets hosed on the powers. (In the end, it's more effective just making a basic attack.)
And your beast cannot attack independent of your character--which has good mechanical reasons, but not good logical or suspension-of-disbelief reasons.
The only real benefit of the beast is the flanking, providing a +2 bonus to your character's attack--but don't you need to some feat to gain the benefit of flanking with ranged weapons? (Otherwise, you have to be adjacent to your enemy and provoke opportunity attacks each time you fire your bow.)
JoeNotCharles
First Post
It can also flank for other characters. And you can declare your Hunter's Quarry on the closest target to either yourself or the beast, which is a bonus for an archer ranger who can hang back and let the beast jockey for position.
I'm committed to Beastmaster. I like this story where the kid gets along better with his animal companion than real people, but slowly learns to find friends among the other adventurers. The story arc would work better in a traditional campaign rather than a living world where he may not be with the same party members again, but still...
O.R.E. - I love it! LOL.
I guess I'm looking for balance. If I wanted to min/max, I would pick a different race to start. I just want to make sure I have a role in the party.
I don't want to be like that. I've actually found it a fun challenge to write the narrative for fumbles, and Finnian has had a few. But I'd like to establish a character that other people want to have in their party, and not just because I sometimes go off and write stupid amounts of pointless dialogue.
Yes, that's the goal. I think the character is fine (although, I need to make sure I don't go off like I did the other day too often. Don't want to make it less fun for anyone else to role-play by stealing the scene with pointless dialgoue that derails the story).
I think I just need to work on the mechanics a bit so I better understand the striker role in a fight.
Now that I got the philosophical stuff out of the way, let's move on to making Finnian suck less...
Finnian is a beastmaster. There are two paths: ranged or melee. Here's a first take at pros and cons
Archer
Pros:
Melee
Pros:
Finnian is a beastmaster. There are two paths: ranged or melee. Here's a first take at pros and cons
Archer
Pros:
- raptor can make any target on the battlefield the quarry by flying to that position.
- Can sit at range and deal decent amounts of damage with twin strike and HQ without getting hit by target
- Boring in combat. Just sit back and roll twin strike each turn.
- Hosed if an enemy closes and gets opportunity attacks
- Feats to make beastmaster archer effective come much later than might be realized in a PbP living world career.
Melee
Pros:
- gets automatic (almost) flanking with beast companion
- still has twin strike
- beast protector feat could generate opportunity attacks
- raptor isn't the strongest melee beast
- Not as good as Two Blade fighting style (no bonus toughness feat either)
Twin Strike is not that good of a power.
You may get two attacks, but you do not add any ability bonuses to damage.
Assume a +4 bonus to an attack and a longbow (1d8 damage)...
If you make a ranged basic attack and hit. You inflict an average of 8.5 points of damage, with a minimum of 5 and maximum of 12. You only make one attack roll and have a 50% chance of success. You have a 5% chance of achieving maximum damage (critical hit).
With Twin Strike, assuming you are attacking an opponent of equal level, you have only a 50% chance of hitting. When you shoot twice, you have the following probabilities...
The advantage to Twin Strike is that you will hit more often than with a basic attack--but only by virtue of attacking more often. However, your overall damage output will be lower, and your chance of maximum damage (even though it is 4 points higher) is extremely low.
You may get two attacks, but you do not add any ability bonuses to damage.
Assume a +4 bonus to an attack and a longbow (1d8 damage)...
If you make a ranged basic attack and hit. You inflict an average of 8.5 points of damage, with a minimum of 5 and maximum of 12. You only make one attack roll and have a 50% chance of success. You have a 5% chance of achieving maximum damage (critical hit).
With Twin Strike, assuming you are attacking an opponent of equal level, you have only a 50% chance of hitting. When you shoot twice, you have the following probabilities...
- 25% of the time you miss
- 50% of the time you hit with only one attack, inflicting 1d8 damage or an average of 4.5 points of damage per attack
- 25% of the time you hit with both attacks, inflicting 2d8 damage or an average of 9 points of damage -- but your minimum damage is 2 and your maximum is 16.
The advantage to Twin Strike is that you will hit more often than with a basic attack--but only by virtue of attacking more often. However, your overall damage output will be lower, and your chance of maximum damage (even though it is 4 points higher) is extremely low.
Last edited:
Atanatotatos
First Post
O____O"
*Cough*
It's the most damaging at-will in the game.
Similar Threads
