Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Omnirahk_half-Rahkshi Jan 20, 2010 18:54:35	Take this with a grain of salt: I have not been able to playtest any hybrid rules.  That said, why nerf the beast companion for hybrid rangers?  If you choose to take the Hybrid Talent feat to get a beast companion, that beast companion takes a -1 penalty to defenses and to attacks.  It's the attacks that really drives me nuts.  That's effectively: take -1 to all attack rolls playing up what you probably intend to be a major aspect of your character.  Because if you're taking beast master ranger, you probably want to do something with that beast.  In the debate of whether or not beastmaster is underpowered, I fall on the side that WotC has published Weapon and Implement Expertise as a way to fix an error with attack roll scaling - something attacks made with your beast lack.  So full-scale beastmaster rangers are already a tad behind in this one aspect.  Hybrid beastmasters are further penalized.  That's not good.  But if we ignore this issue (which I've seen can be contentious), why does it need nerfing in hybrid rules?  No other hybrids take a penalty to attack rolls.  It doesn't need balancing: the extra striker damage from rangers comes from Hunter's Quarry, which hybrid rules have already done something to balance.  So maybe the issue is having that second body on the ground, and the extra pool of hit points.  I can accept a defense penalty.  It makes a kind of sense.  I could even accept a small hit point loss.  But if that's the argument, why aren't summoned creatures also penalized?  Because both have the result of making certain hybrid builds less appealing.  Maybe the attack penalty is because beast attacks tend to come in pairs: one attack roll from the ranger, one from the companion, and the bonus damage from high STR and/or magic items stacks.  I've heard that's why TWF rangers get some of the best striker damage.  But then why aren't TWF rangers nerfed when TWFing?  In fact, TWF rangers get more bonus damage, since both main hand and off-hand attacks get a bonus for magic items.  The BM's "off-hand weapon" is the beast companion, which doesn't have an enhancement bonus and doesn't have that sort of bonus damage.  I've pursued all avenues of thought I can think of, and the nerf doesn't make sense to me.  I've come up with rough analogies for other classes that didn't get a similar nerf.  Admittedly, rough analogies can fail quite readily, but it still doesn't make sense. I'm hoping to see that WotC had a reason for adding this nerf.  But it makes no sense to me.  As is, my first impulse is to throw it straight out, and only add it back in if I see a reason for it.
#2 Eisenritter Jan 20, 2010 20:34:49	I find fault with your logic.  Your beast companion's numbers are determined the same as any NPC's, and therefore have no need for math fixes such as Expertise.  Hybrid rules, however, are just plain bad.
#3 Omnirahk_half-Rahkshi Jan 20, 2010 20:57:28	I find fault with your logic. Your beast companion's numbers are determined the same as any NPC's, and therefore have no need for math fixes such as Expertise. Hybrid rules, however, are just plain bad. Well, I'm willing to admit that the math could be off - I've heard some people say the beast powers are underpowered, others saying that's fixable by taking non-beast powers.  I haven't played one to know well enough.  There is a BM in our party, but he's mostly an archer. Barring this questionable bit of math, my question is unanswered: why do hybrid beastmasters need an attack penalty that straight beastmasters lack?  We can ignore the questionable claim that beasts could use a bonus to hit - it doesn't actually matter if the straight BM is properly balanced to ask whether the hybrid version needs such a nerf.
#4 Janx_14 Jan 20, 2010 22:11:09	The problem with beastmasters already is that the beast gets no feats or items that up its damage to my knowledge. While a two-weapon or archer ranger can often get x2 or more the benefit of weapon focus and other damage bonuses due to multi-attacks, the beastmaster sometimes gets 1 attack in, and then the beast goes in with its largely unmodified damage. I think the problem is that wizard's is scared of it, like they are the avenger's double rolls. For good reason though, its effectively a mini-character you get on the field. Sure, it currently has damage issues, but if they are fixed in say, martial power 2, then it could potentially become overpowered. Even then, this argument doesn't hold up to well, since the beast only normally attacks if you use a ranger power, so in which case, it should be under  control just as the striker feature is. I think the problem is the epic feat/epic destiny that let the beast attack 1/round as a minor action. Its a pretty decent payoff for 20 levels of rather boring animal companion, but a free attack as a minor action every round is a pretty big deal. For a hybrid they may have deemed it a bit too good. I agree the penalty to hit is kind of silly though, the defense penalty i could live with.
#5 Nyronus Jan 20, 2010 23:08:05	The beast also can generate extra attacks in the form of oppourunity attacks. I don't think this counts for much though. The Beast can also attack while your down (granted, unless someone tries to Coup De Grace you, its going to be every other round as the beast has to charge and then move back) All in all, yeah, I can see the epic feat being the problem. Then again, that epic feat is a porblem, but mostly the fact that Beasts are pretty lack-luster to begin with keeps it from becoming the "Go to" option for rangers. Course, for those first twenty levels, there's no reason you have to put those two triple-headed flails away. The -1 is kind of unelegant and I honestly don't really see how it fixes anything even if the feat was the problem. A free MBA each turn is still a free MBA each turn. Even at -1. If anything, this does make me want to play a Ranger|Barbarian with a wolf companion, -1 or not.
#6 Mcnancy Jan 21, 2010 10:29:45	I think the reason they did was because without that nerf a Hybrid Beastmaster is a way better Beastmaster than a full on Ranger Beastmaster Combos like Rogue|Beastmaster or Warlord|Beastmaster would totally overshadow a full on Beastmaster if the full on version didn't have something to give it an edge I don't think a -1 attack is ever a good idea for a nerf, thats just not very fun, but there does need to be something to keep the Ranger from just being in the way of a better Beastmaster.
#7 Omnirahk_half-Rahkshi Jan 21, 2010 10:36:24	So, seeing from what everyone else has said, the nerf may be just to make sure hybrid beastmasters aren't better than the currently underpowered straight beastmaster?  So they nerf the hybrid rather than trying to properly balance beastmaster.  ...Good job, WotC.
#8 Mcnancy Jan 21, 2010 10:42:37	So, seeing from what everyone else has said, the nerf may be just to make sure hybrid beastmasters aren't better than the currently underpowered straight beastmaster?  So they nerf the hybrid rather than trying to properly balance beastmaster.  ...Good job, WotC. Bingo.
#9 mellored Jan 21, 2010 14:31:49	My guess is that they will have a damage feat for beasts.  Which is the only thing keeping them "underpowered".  Add +2/3/4 damage feat and their as strong as regular rangers.
#10 Omnirahk_half-Rahkshi Jan 21, 2010 17:41:19	So, seeing from what everyone else has said, the nerf may be just to make sure hybrid beastmasters aren't better than the currently underpowered straight beastmaster? So they nerf the hybrid rather than trying to properly balance beastmaster. ...Good job, WotC. Bingo. I was afraid of that.  If a main part of the concern is having that extra body for AoO and basic attacks at epic levels, how about this?  Your beast takes a -1 penalty to defenses and basic attacks.  If this is still too strong, -1 defenses and -2 to basic attacks.  Makes the beast powers less useless.
#11 ryukatana Jan 23, 2010 9:10:18	"Does anyone on these forums actually play DnD? Seriously, it seems like everyone just comes to the forums to argue numbers, like they flipped through the books and are just calculating combat, without considering actual gameplay." "The thing is, in a real game, having an extra creature on the field, grants the ranger an extra lump of hit points. In a realistic game enemies don't think, 'Kill the ranger, if you do, the beast will only be able to make melee basic attacks, thus downgrading its overall performance in combat.' That lump of hit points can draw a lot of heat away from other party members." "They may lose overall damage output, but they gain the benefit of those extra hit points, not to mention something to draw away extra effects and being able to take control of more of the battlefield. WotC has every reason to expect that the beastmaster is going to have a few advantages in other areas. This is not counting the fact that beasts can easily supplement a well built ranger in other ways. An archer ranger benefits more from having a raptor companion than taking the extra feat granted by the archer build. The raptor can simply fly over a target and allow you to hunter's quarry just about any enemy you want." "The penalty exists to create a buffer, so that a full beastmaster gets some benefits that a hybrid does not."
#12 Omnirahk_half-Rahkshi Jan 23, 2010 10:13:13	"Does anyone on these forums actually play DnD? Seriously, it seems like everyone just comes to the forums to argue numbers, like they flipped through the books and are just calculating combat, without considering actual gameplay." "The thing is, in a real game, having an extra creature on the field, grants the ranger an extra lump of hit points. In a realistic game enemies don't think, 'Kill the ranger, if you do, the beast will only be able to make melee basic attacks, thus downgrading its overall performance in combat.' That lump of hit points can draw a lot of heat away from other party members." "They may lose overall damage output, but they gain the benefit of those extra hit points, not to mention something to draw away extra effects and being able to take control of more of the battlefield. WotC has every reason to expect that the beastmaster is going to have a few advantages in other areas. This is not counting the fact that beasts can easily supplement a well built ranger in other ways. An archer ranger benefits more from having a raptor companion than taking the extra feat granted by the archer build. The raptor can simply fly over a target and allow you to hunter's quarry just about any enemy you want." "The penalty exists to create a buffer, so that a full beastmaster gets some benefits that a hybrid does not." Admittedly, I don't get to play D&D as much as I'd like to.  I can count on one hand the number of different characters I've created.  So, yeah, my understanding is limited a bit more to the mechanics, based on such theoretical analyses.  That said, I think it's unfair to look at all the mechanical discussions on these forums and conclude that mechanics is all that matters to forum-goers.  If you look at a particular class feature and it looks imbalanced, the mechanics are really all that should go into discussing balance.  Whether or not it's awesome to have a hybrid beastmaster/artificer with his golem following him around doesn't affect whether or not the penalty to his golem's attack rolls is a good or bad way to fix mechanical issues.  Personally, I think the forums have so many mechanical discussions because all the neat RP experiences don't as consistently lend themselves to sharing online.
#13 Caeric Jan 24, 2010 17:08:27	See, there is an inherent risk in "fixing" the beastmaster. If you make the beast companion's attack and damage proper to an actual PC's, that means you do as much damage as the average two-weapon ranger. So the question is; from an optimization position, who plays two-weapon fighters anymore? Your beast is an extra health cushion, and between you and him the damage equates to the two-weaponers. I mean, sure, the beast mastery does less damage, but there is an element of defenderish protection that comes with this additional meatsack in the team.
#14 mellored Jan 24, 2010 21:57:39	See, there is an inherent risk in "fixing" the beastmaster. If you make the beast companion's attack and damage proper to an actual PC's, that means you do as much damage as the average two-weapon ranger. So the question is; from an optimization position, who plays two-weapon fighters anymore? Your beast is an extra health cushion, and between you and him the damage equates to the two-weaponers. I mean, sure, the beast mastery does less damage, but there is an element of defenderish protection that comes with this additional meatsack in the team. The problem is just that.  Rangers can take beastmaster, and still take all 2-weapon attacks.  They only loose a little damage on the off hand (twin strike doesn't specify using the off-hand weapon, but a few attacks do).  It's also true for bow rangers, giving up prime-shot isn't a big deal to most of them.
#15 AvantCard Jan 25, 2010 2:08:21	Normally Beast Masters give up Prime Shot. Otherwise a Ranged Ranger would always choose Beast Mastery unless they were going for the Battlefield Archer Paragon Path. A hybrid beast master has no Prime Shot to give up so instead the beast gets a small penalty. Seems balanced to me. Beasts are good.
#16 Marandahir Jan 25, 2010 10:00:28	Normally Beast Masters give up Prime Shot. Otherwise a Ranged Ranger would always choose Beast Mastery unless they were going for the Battlefield Archer Paragon Path. A hybrid beast master has no Prime Shot to give up so instead the beast gets a small penalty. Seems balanced to me. Beasts are good. There seems to be an alternative to Prime Shot in MP2.  This might be something Beast Masters can take, but more likely they give up the entire class feature choice altogether.
#17 undrave Jan 26, 2010 0:24:25	I always thought the Beasts biggest problem was the total lack of bonus Crit dice.
#18 mellored Jan 26, 2010 7:55:47	I always thought the Beasts biggest problem was the total lack of bonus Crit dice. That is some, but the lack of the +6 enchancement bonuse hurts more.  They just need a +damage feat for beast, and it's all well.
#19 Janx_14 Jan 26, 2010 9:45:15	I think it comes down to there being many ways to buff player damage (basic + items, iron armbands of power, crit dice of weapons, conditional feats and PP damage bonuses) while there is next to no way to increase  the damage of the beast. There is also a lack of interesting feats for them, except beast defender and the all-mighty one at epic. Yes, its another sack of HP, and the beastmaster has plenty of ways to heal or defend his beast companion, buts its damage is low enough that its not likely to hold an enemy's attention for long, as an average defender will have a mark and more damage. It somewhat fails at its role of secondary defender, beyond being able to block off paths.