Did I read this right?

[DDogwood]

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.

No, the Ranger has to use a standard action every single time he wants his beast to attack.

You're right that the idea was to avoid characters with multiple attack actions - it's really easy for things to become unbalanced when a character can make multiple attacks.

 

[RefinedBean]

it's really easy for things to become unbalanced when a character can make multiple attacks.

I know, just look at Twin Strike!

Anyway, this point:

2) if the beast is in range of the enemy and can attack while you can't

is, in my opinion, the biggest. Immobilized? Dazed and far away? Your beast can still do the work for you. Awesome stuff.

 

[Evilusion]

Damn, I understand why, just I do not have to like it.

Evilusion

 

[RefinedBean]

And that's fine. I hate Clerics. We all have our thing, eh?

But the mantra of 4E may as well be "You have to see it in play." Maybe try out the BM Ranger* and see if it's more exciting than it looks on paper. You might be pleasantly surprised!

*Which, now that I think about it, is probably not the best acronym for that particular Ranger.

 

[77IM]

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?

The warlord in my party almost never attacks anyone with his at-wills. Instead he uses commander's strike to have his allies attack. Does this make him kinda useless in a fight? No, he kicks ass.

I suspect beastmaster ranger will play out the same way.

-- 77IM

 

[DrSpunj]

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

Go for the eyes, Boo!

Sorry, had to be said!

The warlord in my party almost never attacks anyone with his at-wills. Instead he uses commander's strike to have his allies attack. Does this make him kinda useless in a fight? No, he kicks ass.

I suspect beastmaster ranger will play out the same way.

I was going to make this same point, but 77IM beat me to it. I think it's a great way to get some of the advantages of an animal companion without the "look everyone, I have 2 characters now all the time!" we quickly tired of in 3e.

I can see that it's not for everyone, and no one in my games has tried it yet, but it looks interesting. I'm still curious about beast survivability at higher levels though given how much of a chronic problem that was with animal companions and paladin's mounts in 3e.

 

[fba827]

Oh yeah... to add to my list above ...

5) it adds one more body on the battle field, so more targets for bad guys to spread damage around (thus less likely one PC will get mobbed and dropped)
6) more allies on the field means more tactical postitioning posibilities (not counting flanking, as already mentioned), things such as blocking hallways or putting one more creature between the bad guys and the squishies in the back row

but , anyway, the point was made. i just didn't want to leave my list incomplete when i already thought of these additional two things.

 

[Evilusion]

Oh yeah... to add to my list above ...

5) it adds one more body on the battle field, so more targets for bad guys to spread damage around (thus less likely one PC will get mobbed and dropped)
6) more allies on the field means more tactical postitioning posibilities (not counting flanking, as already mentioned), things such as blocking hallways or putting one more creature between the bad guys and the squishies in the back row

Wow what game do you play in. I tend to not allow that to happen. My players tend to concentrate the fire power on to one monster at a time. So the monster do it right back. Yes I'm a rat bastard DM.

Evilusion