Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 4800595" data-attributes="member: 2011">This is no different than most other ranged PCs like a Wizard. Most ranged PCs should find cover (even soft cover from allies), fire away, and more or less stay put unless threatened or forced to move to find new targets (some ranged PCs like Warlocks can get a defensive bonus if moving, so that is an exception).This is not uninteresting, it's just not melee.Actually, this house rule would often result in more movement for melee Rangers.For example:. . . . .. . F . .. P E R .. . . . .. . . . .Say the PC Ranger and Pet have the Enemy flanked and the PC Fighter has the Enemy marked. In core rules, the Enemy may or may not stay put because only the Ranger flanks him. The Pet doesn't get an attack. The Ranger and Fighter get the same number of attacks regardless, so it is +2 for two attacks by the Ranger vs. the Fighter getting an extra attack. Either might be in the Enemy's best interest, but typically even with +2, fewer attacks are better.With the house rule, he has a more serious choice. Stay put and do not get attacked by the Fighter's Combat Challenge, or stay in flank and allow 4 attack rolls (1 Pet, 1 Fighter, and 2 Ranger with Twin Strike) where 3 of these attack rolls have Combat Advantage.He is more likely to move out of this situation which in turn is more likely to force the PCs to move as well.The Pet does not get to attack in this case, but the Fighter does get an extra attack because of the Pet. Pros and Cons.The real advantage of this house rule is that it both allows the Pet to be a more active participant and it is simple, without seriously unbalancing the Ranger PC.</blockquote>

Verification