A Bag of Wonders should help on the multiple pets front. Just ask your DM if you can keep the pet static. And ask if you can theme some of your powers to involve other pets- have a power that increases your perception? That can be thanks to your Eagle. Just as long as only one pet is combat it's all good.
Beastmaster Ranger up
- Thread starter Rechan
- Start date
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Aura abilities seemed so... natural with the 3.x Paladin... But they never made anything of it there. And the 4E Paladin unfortunately also doesn't have any. Of course, my inspiration would be Diablo II, not WoW. (Speaking of - when is the Necromancer due?
)Might be time to create some new utilities for the Paladin, eh?
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
The article states that the species of beast doesn't change its stats, so I suspect the type of creature is just a flavor thing, and only matters so far as special power effects. The relevant stats will likely be some sort of fixed level progression.
What I'd like to know is how they fixed the "animal companion = two characters" problem. If the beast has a distinct space, it has to move around some how ... whose actions are being used?
What I'd like to know is how they fixed the "animal companion = two characters" problem. If the beast has a distinct space, it has to move around some how ... whose actions are being used?
erf_beto
First Post
I suspect the ranger uses a minor action to grant the companion a minor, move OR standard action. Judging by the excerpt, most powers for this build will give the impression that both ranger and beast are moving and attacking (i.e. taking their actions), with all the slides and shifts.
Badwe
First Post
reposting from the less popular beast master thread:
I feel like there wasn't enough information to properly explain how exactly the beast works. I am exceedingly curious because as we all know, pets and companions were removed due to the design constraint related to "The economy of actions" where having many minions unbalanced the game.
One concern I have is more leaning towards the druid. in 3.5 the druid was the predominant animal companion class and the ranger was merely a half druid. This felt silly as the ranger seemed like it should have a balanced way to have a full level pet, but animal companions ought to be a part of the druid as well. It would be disappointing to have to wait for a splat book for druids to have animal companion options.
Once there is a clear understanding of how pets are done, other sourcebooks could expand upon this idea for things like paladin/warlord/fighter squires or wizard/sorcerer familiars etc.
I feel like there wasn't enough information to properly explain how exactly the beast works. I am exceedingly curious because as we all know, pets and companions were removed due to the design constraint related to "The economy of actions" where having many minions unbalanced the game.
One concern I have is more leaning towards the druid. in 3.5 the druid was the predominant animal companion class and the ranger was merely a half druid. This felt silly as the ranger seemed like it should have a balanced way to have a full level pet, but animal companions ought to be a part of the druid as well. It would be disappointing to have to wait for a splat book for druids to have animal companion options.
Once there is a clear understanding of how pets are done, other sourcebooks could expand upon this idea for things like paladin/warlord/fighter squires or wizard/sorcerer familiars etc.
Dangit there goes my plans to play a caravan driving ranger BJ and his pet ape Bear....
How many companions did a ranger go through in 3.5?
I agree with you, and on top of that, I think that the "raising" an animal companion is really more about addressing how many animal companions rangers ruthlessly slaughtered in 3.5. We had a ranger in our group who went through an animal companion about every other encounter. It was ridiculous and turned into a running-joke in the campaign. Intentional running jokes are fun, unintentional running jokes are kinda fun too, but at the end it's really kind of... embarrassing, lol.
When I'm DMing the beastmaster in my game, and an animal companion "gets killed," I'm giong to give the player the option of going with a ritual-magical route of "raising" the animal, or a more mundane approach by saying "your animal companion is incompacitated." This then gives the ranger an abstract way to revive the animal through his wilderness lore, etc...
But yeah, ultimately, I think reviving an animal companion is less to do with WoW and more to do with the revolving door of cute, furry, animal-meat-shields in 3.5
Cheers
I agree with you, and on top of that, I think that the "raising" an animal companion is really more about addressing how many animal companions rangers ruthlessly slaughtered in 3.5. We had a ranger in our group who went through an animal companion about every other encounter. It was ridiculous and turned into a running-joke in the campaign. Intentional running jokes are fun, unintentional running jokes are kinda fun too, but at the end it's really kind of... embarrassing, lol.
When I'm DMing the beastmaster in my game, and an animal companion "gets killed," I'm giong to give the player the option of going with a ritual-magical route of "raising" the animal, or a more mundane approach by saying "your animal companion is incompacitated." This then gives the ranger an abstract way to revive the animal through his wilderness lore, etc...
But yeah, ultimately, I think reviving an animal companion is less to do with WoW and more to do with the revolving door of cute, furry, animal-meat-shields in 3.5
Cheers
