Did I read this right?

[Evilusion]

Beastmaster Ranger have to use their standard action to tell the beast to attack? If this is true does this not make the beastmaster kinda of useless in a fight?

Thanks all

Evilusion

 

[fba827]

it's there to keep you (as a player) from getting more actions over all compared to other players.

The main benefits that the beast still provide to you are:
1) If the beast has a better attack than you do
2) if the beast is in range of the enemy and can attack while you can't
3) position the beast to provide flanking bonus for you
4) some of the powers let _both_ of you attack/damage the target (or at least provide bonus damage from the other)

(and a couple others depending on the powers and feats that you choose -- I have to say the one where an enemy attacking your beast provokes and OA from you is nice).

 

[Dragonbait]

Beastmaster Ranger have to use their standard action to tell the beast to attack? If this is true does this not make the beastmaster kinda of useless in a fight?

Yes.. If you ignore all the benefits of the beast that fba827 listed. It's not a good class option for a person who wants a straight-forward character that has very obvious and simple combat options.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

You can't dissociate the ranger from his beast companion. No ranger, no beast. So whatever contribution the beast brings to the fight, you lay at the ranger's feet.

So no, he's not useless. It's not like the party can say 'screw the ranger, he waste a share of the treasure and does nothing while his bear does most of the work. Let's ditch him and just keep the bear!'.

 

[DracoSuave]

Beastmaster Ranger have to use their standard action to tell the beast to attack? If this is true does this not make the beastmaster kinda of useless in a fight?

Thanks all

Evilusion

To use a basic melee attack action, yes. To do an opportunity attack, however, it's an immediate interrupt, and other attacks are powers and use the listed action types.

Given that you'll be using powers to do most of your attacks anyways, you'll rarely use the 'standard action to have the beast attack.'

 

[CapnZapp]

It's not like the party can say 'screw the ranger, he waste a share of the treasure and does nothing while his bear does most of the work. Let's ditch him and just keep the bear!'.

That would be awesome, though!

 

[DracoSuave]

It is correct tho, the strength of the beast companion is in the ranger's powers. No powers, no strength for beast.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Beastmaster Ranger have to use their standard action to tell the beast to attack? If this is true does this not make the beastmaster kinda of useless in a fight?

Tell the Beastmaster that to his face, while his killer attack hamster is hanging off yours.

-Hyp.

 

[tensen]

Beastmaster Ranger have to use their standard action to tell the beast to attack? If this is true does this not make the beastmaster kinda of useless in a fight?

Thanks all

Evilusion

As a DM I read it like fire and forget. Go attack that target. Each round until the target is dead the beast keeps attacking. Yes, you lost you own attacks the first round, but don't have to use it again unless you need to direct your beast to another target.

But I imagine the game designers wanted to make it no different then having an attack power. That seems to be their goal for most of 4th edition.

 

[DracoSuave]

If you're a Beastmaster, you're taking Beast powers. At the very least, the at-will.

You're never going to -use- the command for basic melee attack, so it doesn't matter what sort of action it is.

But it doesn't make you useless, because the beast is an extension of yourself, as opposed to you bringing two characters to the field.