NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 7487979" data-attributes="member: 2525">The ranger attacking from range while your companion attacks from melee is not well supported by the class. But it's also vastly different from the argument you or anyone else in this thread was making earlier. You've shifted from, "I want a beast that is effective in combat" to "I want my Ranger to be an archer, nice and safe from harm away from the battlefield, while I want my beast companion to mix it up on the front line in melee, and be as effective as I would be in melee".You can want that of course, but it's asking more than others were asking for previously. And that specific preference isn't well supported right now. But, if your general prior argument, and the argument others made previously, was simply for an animal companion who can be effective in combat, I think I've proven that they can be effective that way. But to do it, you must be a melee ranger as well. That will satisfy some, and not others. But now that we've reduced down to a much more specific an less typical strategy preference, I think it's not a very compelling argument. You want to have a combat companion instead of a scouting and helping one, you can. You just can't be an archer while doing it.  If that is a big deal for you, don't choose this subclass. But it's not a strong argument to justify alone altering the entire base class.Implied but not specified. So it's room to clarify it to provide more protection to animal companions.</blockquote>

Verification