How does one play a beastmaster Ranger?

[Asmor]

I thought about that when I was playing with the CB, but I noticed two things... (1) that hoses your flanking advantage;

How so? I thought that reach was a purely positive quality, i.e. you could use the reach at your option but still attack and threaten adjacent to you.

 

[Obryn]

How so? I thought that reach was a purely positive quality, i.e. you could use the reach at your option but still attack and threaten adjacent to you.

Oh you absolutely can, but I figure that you've got contrasting goals at that point. You need to be adjacent to flank, and the opportunity will come up frequently for your beastmaster; but you'd really rather be non-adjacent, because otherwise why have a reach weapon?

-O

 

[Caliber]

Beastmaster Rangers are an odd breed, more towards a Defender, with the extra body and the huge pool of "free" HP, than a Striker. Your damage is likely to be lower if you try to rely on your beast for damage at all, at least once you start leveling up. The lack of any magical item bonuses, or even feats to improve damage, will quickly leave your beast behind anything you can dish out. For Beastmasters, I have seen just a few builds that seem reasonably playable:

Beastmaster Archer v1 - essentially use your beast to place your Quarry on whomever you want (you can measure the "closest enemy" from your beast) and otherwise play like a normal Archery Ranger, with the beast making up for your loss of free Toughness.

Beastmaster Archer v2 - as above, plus use Beast Protector and the Sharpshooter PP to give yourself an OA anytime your beast is attacked. Send him into harms way and happily fill anyone who lays a hand on him full of arrow.

Beastmaster Dualer - somewhat like the first archer build, just use your beast as a mobile flanking platform, but only attack using standard melee Ranger powers. Note you lose the ability to use one-handed weapons in your off-hand here, a rather heavy blow.

Full Beastmaster - this one is tricky to pull off. You don't get an At-Will comparable to Twin Strike, and in fact only get to attack with both yourself and your beast using Encounter or Daily powers. Your beast's damage will be respectable at first, but will rapidly be outclassed as you gain levels (although their to-hit will always be rather nice, as will their HP). Even using big heavy two handers, expect to do noticeably less damage, not to mention that your scant number of healing surges are being eaten up not only by you (that two hander means wading into melee) but also by your beast, which only has two surges of its own. Also, you are now doubly vulnerable to affects like Stun or Daze, as they can easily take out one or the other of your two man team; Stun or Daze the Ranger and the beast if effectively Stunned or Dazed as well. Stun or Daze the beast and most of the Ranger's Encounter and Daily abilities lose out on over half of their benefit.

For the record, I'm playing a Full Beastmaster myself right now. A few other players have remarked on my low damage, and I've noticed it myself. I have some ideas on how to transform it into a better build (look at "Da Bleeder" for an idea on where I'm going) but I'm not sure what would give a more viable route.

Good luck, post any solutions you come up with.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Thanks for the replies, guys!

Currently I'm playing a beastmaster, mainly because it was the mechanic that most closely modeled the character concept I came up with. We're playing in an Iron Kingdoms (a gritty, steam-powered mechano-fantasty world) campaign using 4e rules for the crunch, and I wanted to play a "little-boy with big robot sidekick"-type character.

So I decided to try a beastmaster ranger, where mechanically the steamjack (the robot) is the character, and the boy is actually the pet, although in-character it's the boy who is the character, and the 'jack that's the pet.

I am having a ball with the idea, but am still working out how to actually play the character in combat to his full effectiveness.

Thus far I've basically ignored the "pet," having the boy stand in the back giving orders to the robot, while it waded into combat. However, last session I realized that the pet actually has a good AC (19) and only a few hit points less than the ranger character itself.

Sooo....I've been rethinking the tactical options of the class, wondering whether I'm not missing things.

Beastmaster Dualer - somewhat like the first archer build, just use your beast as a mobile flanking platform, but only attack using standard melee Ranger powers. Note you lose the ability to use one-handed weapons in your off-hand here, a rather heavy blow.

This is basically my build, though I didn't notice the off-hand thing. I'll have to bring it up to my DM. Would anyone consider it unbalancing to allow the beastmaster to wield one-handed weapons in the offhand?

 

[Armadillo]

So I decided to try a beastmaster ranger, where mechanically the steamjack (the robot) is the character, and the boy is actually the pet, although in-character it's the boy who is the character, and the 'jack that's the pet.

That's a great spin on a beastmaster and perfect for an IK campaign.

 

[Obryn]

This is basically my build, though I didn't notice the off-hand thing. I'll have to bring it up to my DM. Would anyone consider it unbalancing to allow the beastmaster to wield one-handed weapons in the offhand?

I wouldn't allow it... I mean, at that point the only thing a dual-wield ranger gets is a free Toughness feat. And when it comes down to it, having a beast companion is a great deal more valuable than a single feat.

-O

 

[Caliber]

I wouldn't allow it... I mean, at that point the only thing a dual-wield ranger gets is a free Toughness feat. And when it comes down to it, having a beast companion is a great deal more valuable than a single feat.

-O

I have to agree with Obryn. I probably could be swayed to let you take a feat to get the ability back though; non-Rangers are able to take a feat and gain the ability after all ...

 

[Obryn]

I have to agree with Obryn. I probably could be swayed to let you take a feat to get the ability back though; non-Rangers are able to take a feat and gain the ability after all ...

That's true, they can... but I still don't like the balance in this case. One of the reasons it works for other classes without getting crazy is those classes' limited access to powers which allow two attacks if you're wielding two weapons.

-O

 

[Caliber]

That's true, they can... but I still don't like the balance in this case. One of the reasons it works for other classes without getting crazy is those classes' limited access to powers which allow two attacks if you're wielding two weapons.

-O

I didn't say I absolutely would, just that I could probably be swayed.

It is of dubious balance, largely for the fact that (as you point out) most classes have to go pretty far to really get any mileage out of the ability to use one-handed weapons in the off-hand, whereas a Beast Ranger (or even an Archery Ranger!) is basiclly ready to take advantage of the situation at once. We're strongly drifting into house rule territory here though, either way.

Edit: A more legitimate option would be to use something like a double-sword (or some other double weapon) from Adventurer's Vault. As an off-hand weapon, even without the dual wield ability its wieldable and the damage is likely superior to anything you can use in your off-hand as is. It costs a feat as well, however.

 

[Obryn]

Edit: A more legitimate option would be to use something like a double-sword (or some other double weapon) from Adventurer's Vault. As an off-hand weapon, even without the dual wield ability its wieldable and the damage is likely superior to anything you can use in your off-hand as is. It costs a feat as well, however.

Yeah, a double sword would be a great choice, overall. You'll still do less than you would with two exotic weapons, but your damage would probably be closer to what you'd want.

-O