Beastmaster Ranger up

[Klaus]

Only one animal companion? When I think of a beastmaster, I think of the classic movie - The Beastmaster. He had two ferrets, a tiger, and a hawk (or eagle or something). Minor cosmetic changes were made in later movies, such as making the tiger a lion. But I digress.

I hope they have a paragon path in there that represents this archetype. I know, I know, it's all about the Balance. Still, there's something to be said about archetypes.

Heathen!

Two Ferrets, an Eagle and a black Tiger. Later movies changed the eagle to a Bald Eagle and the Black Tiger to a regular one.

And the first movie rocks. Very Dark Sun-esque.

I hope Martial Power offers a multiclass option for other classes to get beast companions.

 

[Dragonhelm]

To me, that's more a point of roleplaying than mechanics, but is there a mechanical way which you can see that the "friend" aspect might influence the game?

You're right, it's a matter of semantics. As for the friend aspect in-game...I could see, for example, an empathic connection. A pet wouldn't have that, but an animal companion that you're bonded to would. Therefore, you could direct your beast-friend on the battlefield, or have him do some separate action.

 

[Simplicity]

Hmmm... Check the area of effects...

There's:

Melee beast 1. (I'm assuming this is the beast's attack area?)
Melee weapon (beast 1) (Does this mean BOTH in your area and the beast's area?)

 

[Scribble]

You're right, it's a matter of semantics. As for the friend aspect in-game...I could see, for example, an empathic connection. A pet wouldn't have that, but an animal companion that you're bonded to would. Therefore, you could direct your beast-friend on the battlefield, or have him do some separate action.

Why would it being a freind allow you to be empathically linked to it, and it being a pet wouldn't?

 

[Ktulu]

But is there a mechanical way which you can see that the "friend" aspect might influence the game?

A little Bow-Chika-wow-wow for healing, maybe?

 

[Howndawg]

My only beef with the beastmaster build is:

No ape.

I'm also curious as to what other classes might get companion builds.
-Animals for druids and possibly barbarians.
-Familiars for wizards.
-Mounts for paladins.
-Spirits for shamans.
-Golems for divine controllers.

 

[ppaladin123]

My only beef with the beastmaster build is:

No ape.

I'm also curious as to what other classes might get companion builds.
-Animals for druids and possibly barbarians.
-Familiars for wizards.
-Mounts for paladins.
-Spirits for shamans.
-Golems for divine controllers.

I am confident that arcane power will have familiars for wizards and/or sorcerers and that divine power will have a "mounted warrior" build for paladins.

 

[fba827]

Hmmm... Check the area of effects...

There's:

Melee beast 1. (I'm assuming this is the beast's attack area?)
Melee weapon (beast 1) (Does this mean BOTH in your area and the beast's area?)

I noticed that too, and wondered the same thing myself. But then I can to the same interpretation that you did. A little less than a month away from release so I guess we'll know soon enough

 

[Dragonhelm]

Why would it being a freind allow you to be empathically linked to it, and it being a pet wouldn't?

Point taken.

Congrats on getting married, btw.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My only beef with the beastmaster build is:

No ape.

But... but... Ape is no beef!

Spoiler

I heard it tastes like chicken

 

[Phaezen]

The other thing I'm not the happiest with is the tone that the animal is either a pet or a weapon. Prior iterations of the beastmaster as well as the movie point to the idea that they are friends moreso than pets or tools. That message is conveyed somewhat in the article, but not wholly.

I'm probably nitpicking at this point.

Or not nitpicking enough, otherwise you would have noticed this paragraph

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.

Just saying . . . . .

Phaezen

 

[Scribble]

Point taken.

Congrats on getting married, btw.

Wasn't trying to make a point... I was actualy curious what your thoughts were.

And Thanks!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Finally, I can make my WoW dwarf hunter in 4E terms!

What?

 

[garyh]

Finally, I can make my WoW dwarf hunter in 4E terms!

What?

No problems with that here, I think it's a fun character type to play.

But first 4e needs rules for guns.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Finally, I can make my WoW dwarf hunter in 4E terms!

What?

Yeah, that's a fair cop. Not a disadvantage from where I stand, though, it's fun to play! When I saw "raise companion," I was like "Oh. Yeah. WoW. Huh."

On the other hand, it seems like the beastmaster ranger is fairly melee-focused, so it's not about aggro-management as much as it is about flanking and providing cover and the like.

I could see the bond getting some extra non-combat work, but simply having the bond with the creature goes a long way toward giving you some flavor to think about. Why befriend a spider? Were you raised by the wolf that is at your side? Melding another "character" with your own is always going to give you some new flavor.

No ape is like no sharks for me -- they're useful in limited circumstances, so I'm not surprised, but, ideally, the stats will be "generic" enough that it is easy to add and modify. Slap some sort of "rend" ability on there, and you might be all right!

 

[Rechan]

Yeah, that's a fair cop. Not a disadvantage from where I stand, though, it's fun to play! When I saw "raise companion," I was like "Oh. Yeah. WoW. Huh."

What's funny is that some things from WoW are so easy and tempting to do for 4e, but they haven't been done.

Take for example, the Shaman with its totems. How a totem works (I've been told) is that it's a buddy they conjure up and allies in the totem's (30 yard) aura gets a passive benefit. They offer lots of effects (+ to melee attacks, increased chance of crits, help with mana or health regeneration, minor reduction of melee damage taken, +spell damage, +healing effects). A shaman can put four of these guys on the field at once (one per element). The totem is targetable and weak, but immune to AoE.

That is too easy and tempting to do with 4e, and I think it would be interesting for play. Now, I don't know if the 4e Shaman in the PHBII will not be doing this, but I doubt WotC would go that far in copying WoW right down to the mechanics.

No ape is like no sharks for me -- they're useful in limited circumstances, so I'm not surprised, but, ideally, the stats will be "generic" enough that it is easy to add and modify. Slap some sort of "rend" ability on there, and you might be all right!

We do have sharks in the AV. So, just putting those stats in line with one of the beasts should do. Hell, I bet that the stats for a Bear could easily work for an ape. (Although really, I'd be tempted to hand the ape a weapon).

 

[Saben]

Bear is close enough to Ape as far as I'm concerned...

Overall the build seems "weaker" but considering you get free flanking out of it, it seems to be balanced.

Reading the preview I noticed that it has Dex listed as secondary when the abilities so far seem to benefit from Wisdom. Longtooth Shifters seem the best in my opinion.. "synchronized strike" and "partnered savaging", while not detailed sound good. I'm expecting them and some other powers to do things like 1[W]+1+beast's Str+ your Wis and other such goodies. The question still remains- can other Rangers get companions through any means? A Beastmaster can still take Twin Strike, but at this stage it looks like Predator Strike would be useless for a melee Ranger...

 

[Dragonhelm]

Or not nitpicking enough, otherwise you would have noticed this paragraph

Heh heh...oops! Missed that.

Wasn't trying to make a point... I was actualy curious what your thoughts were.

And Thanks!

Okay, thoughts below...

Why would it being a freind allow you to be empathically linked to it, and it being a pet wouldn't?

I guess you could have an empathic link either way, but it's a matter of the tone. In a master/pet relationship, the master has command. The pet is his servant.

I like the idea of the person and the beast being friends a little better. The person has no true command. He makes the request, but if the request is something the animal wouldn't do, then it doesn't happen. In other words, it isn't a guarantee. This represents the type of bond you see in the Beastmaster movie.

Of course, one can define a beastmaster in many different ways.

Now, if I could only adapt the beast-rider kit from the 2e Complete Fighter's Handbook...

 

[I'm A Banana]

That is too easy and tempting to do with 4e, and I think it would be interesting for play. Now, I don't know if the 4e Shaman in the PHBII will not be doing this, but I doubt WotC would go that far in copying WoW right down to the mechanics.

I'm POSITIVE "WoW Emulation" is taboo, and that things are checked against some sort of "Too WoW-esque" litmus over there. They have to be aware of the criticism, and I'm sure they tread lightly whenever they get close to the same territory, to make sure there are some meaningful differences.

As far as the "item that grants a radius effect," though, they've already done it. Standards in the Adventurer's Vault. A class doesn't revolve around them, but they're there, for anyone to use, and they work pretty much exactly like a WoW Shaman's totems.

While I'm sure they have a litmus, I'm ALSO sure that they're milking WoW for the good ideas that apply well in D&D (pet resurrection, aura-based abilities, etc.). It'd be a bit silly not to.

We do have sharks in the AV. So, just putting those stats in line with one of the beasts should do. Hell, I bet that the stats for a Bear could easily work for an ape. (Although really, I'd be tempted to hand the ape a weapon).

Given 4e's "design for the purpose" agenda, wherever else sharks occur, they wouldn't be good for this purpose. Just like I'm sure a companion wolf will bear only superficial resemblance to the MM wolf. At best, they're ability inspiration, not something you can really use.

As an aside, for "multiple pets," I think they deliberately left that out as an option. It gets unwieldy in terms of both flavor and combat balance to let a ranger command a small squadron of allies by himself. It is probably better served, as was suggested above, by a less-focused view of "animal companions." More of an Aquaman "I can convince this whale here to do stuff for me!" thing and less of a Gentle Ben "I married this bear!" thing. The beastmaster ranger as presented seems to be in the latter camp. You have one close ally. There is a niche for the other camp, but it would be better served with it's own focus, I imagine.

 

[Rechan]

As far as the "item that grants a radius effect," though, they've already done it. Standards in the Adventurer's Vault. A class doesn't revolve around them, but they're there, for anyone to use, and they work pretty much exactly like a WoW Shaman's totems.

They are much weaker than what I would expect a 4e presentation of a totem to be. Granted, I really didn't pay attention to the ones made for the paragon tier (since my game is so far away from Paragon it's not funny), but still, not very amazing stuff there.

I like the idea of the totems being actual summoned Things which can be damaged and removed from play (yes, standards can be plucked up, but it's not as visceral).