How are 4th Edition sales going?

[RandomCasualty2]

Because all you get in return is a flanking buddy that won't be in position much of the time and exists solely to suck away YOUR resources. On the absurdly rare occasion that it attacks, its damage is utterly trivial.

Four things:
-If it's sucking up your resources, then it's taking hits off you, that's a good thing. Even if the thing dies, it's only 50 gp to bring it back, and it probably won't die anyway since it has to go to negative bloodied. So unless your foes like to skull fuck your wolf instead of attacking your party, usually healing surges will be enough. And if you don't want to burn surges you can always send it home when it gets wounded.

-Your move actions probably won't get used much as an archer anyway. So really who cares if you donate them to the wolf.

-The damage is pretty low, but that actually only makes it a better flanking buddy, because it's inefficient for the enemy to attack the wolf. In most cases, it's not the optimal strategy, which is good for you because you won't need to heal the wolf and you can get your allies get the +2 from flanking.

-If you ever go down, you can keep taking actions through your beast. While the damage may seem trivial, remember that the beast can benefit from your hunter's quarry damage, so the beast can at least finish off your last target.

All you've done is saddled yourself with a permanent version of the cleric's knight's summons that burns real resources off your character. Or as Absent points out, just toss some cash at a bag of tricks.

The problem with the bag of tricks is that it takes a standard action to create the minion, and also burns up a daily magic item power. And that's way too high a cost to bring a minion to help you fight.

The animal companion takes a lot more damage, and you can basically move it around with only your spare move actions.

As for the clerics' powers, you're again, using a daily utility power, so that's taking up a power slot.

The main advantage of the beast companion is that it's cheap. All you pay is a feat for it. Seriously, that's it. And I'm not talking RoW feat or even 3.5 feat. I'm talking about a 4E feat that you don't' even get to choose. Regardless of what you may think about the best companion, I'd really like to hear why you think that Combat mobility feat is a better choice over the extra versatility and soaking power that the beast gives you.

Yeah, the beast isn't 3.5 awesome, but it's still a damn good choice for a 4E character. I'd definitely go beast ranger in 4E.

[Voss]

No, the resources its sucking up are *your actions*, which aren't replaceable. Take a look at the normal encounter maps for 4e. They're small. Your archer is going to have to move a lot to stay out of melee- so even those move actions you're shrugging off matter.

You can pretend the archer is on an infinite plain, but that isn't a design conceit of 4e.


Daily magic item power, on the other hand, isn't a cost. Those suck across the board with a bare handful of exceptions- good magic items have property bonuses, not daily activations, or you buy a pile of DR belts. One standard action instead of an at will attack isn't going to make or break a desperate combat. Constantly burning actions is going to cost you, and having an immobile lump of an animal companion isn't going to do any good.


Combat mobility? Honestly I don't even remember what it does. But... the beast doesn't give you any versatility or soaking power. It puts an obstacle on the back edge of the map that costs you actions and healing surges. Both those things matter. A circumstantial flanking bonus doesn't. The beast is an overwhelming penalty with shit that actually matters in 4e. Its a bad choice, full stop.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I'd also like to mention that:

A) For a fighter-style defender the beast can help plug gaps in your line, if nothing else.

B) If you have a warlord in your party (and you should), the beast can suck off some of your extra attacks.

C) Most importantly, at epic levels you can command the beast to make a basic melee attack as a minor action.

[Lago PARANOIA]

No, the resources its sucking up are *your actions*, which aren't replaceable. Take a look at the normal encounter maps for 4e. They're small. Your archer is going to have to move a lot to stay out of melee- so even those move actions you're shrugging off matter.

That's why the only kind of defender you should get is a fighter and why Andy Collins invented the D5 Spitting Cobra Stance, which lets your ranger as an II make a ranged basic attack at any enemy that moves closer to you.

Besides, your archer isn't even the prime target for attack if enemies break through the lines. The Warlock/Cleric/Wizard/Warlock is.


But anyway, seriously, you've overestimating the opportunity cost here.

All an archer ranger gives up is the Defensive Mobility feat, which is pure ass. If you need to open up the range, just fucking leave your animal companion where it is and take your actions normally.


Seriously, you don't need to take a single ability or feat at all towards pumping up your animal companion. You don't even need to care about it. It's a fucking companion cube that suddenly grows fangs in the epic levels and all you give up on it is a marginal feat.

[RandomCasualty2]

Combat mobility? Honestly I don't even remember what it does. But... the beast doesn't give you any versatility or soaking power. It puts an obstacle on the back edge of the map that costs you actions and healing surges. Both those things matter. A circumstantial flanking bonus doesn't. The beast is an overwhelming penalty with shit that actually matters in 4e. Its a bad choice, full stop.

I'm not sure why you're calling it a drain on resources, given that the beast has 2 healing surges of its own, and there's no incentive to heal it. Seriously, once its hp pool happens to be used up (which it should almost never be anyway because it's a bad target), just send the fucker home. I'm happy if my wolf managed to soak up 30 hp of damage or so at 1st level. In fact, that's awesome. And it can do that just with its base surges and still be alive. So you've gained 30 extra soaking HP.

As for actions, as an archery ranger, you shouldn't be using move actions that much, and really moves and maybe immediates for AoOs is all I would suggest using. Most of the monsters will attack your frontliners, or go for your wizard or something if they get in the back line. But if your defenders are doing anything, then you should have some kind of stopping power up front.

So you use up a few move actions that amount to you just randomly shifting 1 square to make yourself feel happier about yourself. Only this time, instead of a trivial shift you're moving another peice that can do useful stuff. And of course as Lago said, if you need to move, then just move. It's not like the animal companion causes you to lose an action, it's just another possible way of spending an action. And the cost of getting that capability is just one only moderately useful feat. The animal companion carries no obligations. All it means is that you can possibly spend your actions in other ways. And really even if you only get a chance to use it once every other combat, because your DM likes to have every monster rush after you right away, it's still going to be way better than defensive mobility feat.

[Voss]

Ah. I didn't realize that enemies will never outnumber the party, have ranged attacks, or be able to avoid the squares immediately adjacent to a fighter.

Of course they'll never be able to attack the folks in the 'back rank' of 4-5 guys.

RC- you're fooling yourself if you think there are no obligations involved with the animal companion. If its useful at all for soaking attacks the way
you're talking about, if you don't heal it, its dead after 2-3 encounters.
If its isn't soaking attacks, its doing nothing at all. That means you're going to have to spend feats on fucking ritual casting, pay for the ritual and lose 50 gp (or 500 or 5000) 4-5 times every level.


Ah. Just caught something. Maybe it isn't 100% suck. The move action lets both of you move. So its only 75% suck.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Yeah, when magic items are costing over a million gold pieces that 25,000 gp is going to render you bankrupt.

Anyyway you kidding me? What self-respecting monster would use their actions to attack a beast that's probably not even going to do anything to them?

Further, why wouldn't you heal an animal companion? You can use encounter powers as much as you fucking feel like out of combat as long as you've got five minutes.



Seriously, I don't understand what your hang-up is. You get the raise beast ritual for free and a pile of hps in exchange for a relatively useless feat.

And there are of course expansion options on top of that, like the feat in epic that lets your beast take a basic attack as a minor action.

The only real problem I can see is that picking up beast mastery locks you out of the Battlefield Archer PP.

[Voss]

my hang up is *it is useless*. As you say yourself, there is no reason for a monster to attack it. So the fact that it is there doesn't fucking matter, and neither does the pile of hit points that you're going on about. You can't crow about the extra pile of hit points if you admit that everything is going to ignore it!

As to why wouldn't you heal it? You can't use its 2 healing surges outside of second wind or a cleric/warlord power (and talk the rest of your party into wasting healing on something that doesn't contribute- good luck!). So you have to spend *your own healing surges* to heal it out of combat. You've got, what, 6? Hurrah, you get to burn them twice as fast as the rest of the party. So you'll want to rest more often to compensate for the gimp dog chained to your leg. Thats certain to make the rest of the party happy.

not that you have a million gp to throw at the rez cost in the heroic tier. It is relatively trivial, but its still a worthless expense for a worthless creature.

I don't have the faintest idea why you think a beast attack as a minor action is at all significant. At 21st level, a fucking bear (best damage) is going to do 1d12+6. If it hits. Yay. That isn't even worth a *minor* action. 12.5 damage at epic level? Fuck off.

[Lago PARANOIA]

At 21st level, a fucking bear (best damage) is going to do 1d12+6. If it hits. Yay. That isn't even worth a *minor* action. 12.5 damage at epic level? Fuck off.

Okay, wise guy, as an archer what are you going to be doing with those extra minor actions once you have a quarry?

It's free goddamn damage regular archers wouldn't get. It's not a lot but it's more damage than any other archer would dish off.

If you can give me a better use for the one or two extra minor actions an epic-level ranger would be getting then please enlighten me.

[Voss]

I love your selective responses. They amuse me.

Well, just flipping a couple pages, I found a dozen powers that use minor actions. How about those?

Hell, just about everyone should burn feats to take the Guileful Switch Warlord power. Thats just a minor action to activate, and the entire party can use it over the course of a round to give the entire party two turns in a single round. Every encounter. You want effective shit you could do instead? That.

[RandomCasualty2]

my hang up is *it is useless*. As you say yourself, there is no reason for a monster to attack it. So the fact that it is there doesn't fucking matter, and neither does the pile of hit points that you're going on about. You can't crow about the extra pile of hit points if you admit that everything is going to ignore it!

As to why wouldn't you heal it? You can't use its 2 healing surges outside of second wind or a cleric/warlord power (and talk the rest of your party into wasting healing on something that doesn't contribute- good luck!).

During a short rest it's free to spend surges. You're expected to take a short rest after each combat, so I mean no big deal.

Also I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. You're saying on one hand the drawback is that stuff will ignore it and you're saying on the other hand that it's going to die because it's a bitch to heal.

The idea of the beast is that you're throwing it in the mix as a flanker, someone who plugs up holes or just another body for the warlord to affect with some of his powers. And the cost for this is a single feat which has very little effect.

not that you have a million gp to throw at the rez cost in the heroic tier. It is relatively trivial, but its still a worthless expense for a worthless creature.

It has to go to negative bloodied to die. That pretty much never happens beyond the first few levels unless your enemies deliberately try to rape the creature, and besides you said yourself monsters will probably ignore it. So really rez costs aren't a big deal.

Worst case you have to wait until you level so you can replace it for free.

I don't have the faintest idea why you think a beast attack as a minor action is at all significant. At 21st level, a fucking bear (best damage) is going to do 1d12+6. If it hits. Yay. That isn't even worth a *minor* action. 12.5 damage at epic level? Fuck off.

As Lago said, what else are you using your minor actions for? 12.5 damage is a lot more than you'd do by just wasting your action doing nothing.

[Voss]

my hang up is *it is useless*. As you say yourself, there is no reason for a monster to attack it. So the fact that it is there doesn't fucking matter, and neither does the pile of hit points that you're going on about. You can't crow about the extra pile of hit points if you admit that everything is going to ignore it!

As to why wouldn't you heal it? You can't use its 2 healing surges outside of second wind or a cleric/warlord power (and talk the rest of your party into wasting healing on something that doesn't contribute- good luck!).

During a short rest it's free to spend surges. You're expected to take a short rest after each combat, so I mean no big deal.

But you still *spend* them. You only have 6. It can't use its own, unless you use your second wind, or a healer uses a healing power.
After encounter or two of healing for 2, you're going to be tapped.

Also I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. You're saying on one hand the drawback is that stuff will ignore it and you're saying on the other hand that it's going to die because it's a bitch to heal.

Yes, *I* am saying that stuff will ignore it (as is Lago). *You* are, or rather were, saying that stuff will attack it, but that somehow you don't need to spend resources (healing surges) to keep it in good health. Thats crap. if you don't heal it under your mystical 'extra pile of hit points' concept, its going to get dropped.

The idea of the beast is that you're throwing it in the mix as a flanker, someone who plugs up holes or just another body for the warlord to affect with some of his powers. And the cost for this is a single feat which has very little effect.

Yes. but you're also getting something that also has very little effect. And in exchange for flanking, you are going to have to juggle both actions and healing surges. A +2 bonus sometimes (which, as an archer, you will definitely never get), and your party may or may not care about it, be able to use it (positioning, or ranged attacks), or it will be superseded by their own superior abilities.

Call me a crazy person, but an animal companion should be something interesting. Not a static combat obstacle. Yes, even before 21st level. 20 levels of complete suck before 10 levels of mostly suck isn't acceptable design.

[Voss]

Oh, and Lago, I want you to seriously think about what you are arguing. You are seriously taking a position that this isn't a steaming pile of fail, because after literally ***200*** separate encounters where this piece of crap is occasionally granting a flanking bonus, it doesn't completely suck, because after those 200 completely mind-numbing encounters, it can deal completely trivial damage to level appropriate enemies.

If that isn't a sterling example of suck and fail, I really want to know what your standards are.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I love your selective responses. They amuse me.

:rofl

That was just too twee for words. There's nothing like a bit of pretentious condensation to just tack on to your D&D arguments.

I don't know why you didn't go whole hog, though. You should've said 'You sheeple amuse me'. Go the extra mile.

Oh, and Lago, I want you to seriously think about what you are arguing. You are seriously taking a position that this isn't a steaming pile of fail, because after literally ***200*** separate encounters where this piece of crap is occasionally granting a flanking bonus, it doesn't completely suck, because after those 200 completely mind-numbing encounters, it can deal completely trivial damage to level appropriate enemies.

If that isn't a sterling example of suck and fail, I really want to know what your standards are.

Because the alternative is having a marginal feat?

Defensive Mobility will never pay off and even if it did you could just... grab the feat your own damn self. Beast Mastery will pay off, however.

When you get it you can't really do much with it other than plug gaps, make it slightly more unpalatable for a monster to retreat, and set up flanks. But that's already worth Prime Shot and defensive mobility.

But it's already better and gains a huge jump in power when and if you get to epic.

I seriously don't understand your problem with this ability. It's better than nothing and if you're an archer this is the only thing you can't grab with feats. And it's only going to get better as expansion options come out.

[Lago PARANOIA]

And I agree, the Beast Mastery feature is shitty design.

But it's not useless. It's a marginal amount of free power for 2/3rds of your career and it's a substantial amount of mostly-free power for the last 1/3.

[Josh_Kablack]

Why is anyone talking about 4.0 archers who use anything but a Distance Greatbow while riding a Came l/ Giant Lizard / Giant Ant?

Did they release a bunch of monsters with speed 10+ or abilities with actual ranges when I wasn't looking?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Why is anyone talking about 4.0 archers who use anything but a Distance Greatbow while riding a Came l/ Giant Lizard / Giant Ant?

Did they release a bunch of monsters with speed 10+ or abilities with actual ranges when I wasn't looking?

You're not supposed to open up the range as an archer anymore, 'cuz that's cheating. You kill Orcus too easily like that.

I'd balk at this but you're supposed to play 4th Edition like a videogame. That means that Rosa is only a few feet away from Cecil even though she has a bow and arrow.

[Roy]

Why is anyone talking about 4.0 archers who use anything but a Distance Greatbow while riding a Came l/ Giant Lizard / Giant Ant?

Did they release a bunch of monsters with speed 10+ or abilities with actual ranges when I wasn't looking?

You're not supposed to open up the range as an archer anymore, 'cuz that's cheating. You kill Orcus too easily like that.

I'd balk at this but you're supposed to play 4th Edition like a videogame. That means that Rosa is only a few feet away from Cecil even though she has a bow and arrow.

Sad, but true. I'm stealing that.

[Orion]

Dude, a free 1d12+6 is pretty chill in 4e even at epic level.

I haven't heavily optimized, but being very charitable and assuming you're doing 100 per round, that's +10%. Of course, it's not every round -- but you can't do 10 hundred every round with any 4e character, even a ranger.

[Voss]

Why is anyone talking about 4.0 archers who use anything but a Distance Greatbow while riding a Came l/ Giant Lizard / Giant Ant?

Did they release a bunch of monsters with speed 10+ or abilities with actual ranges when I wasn't looking?

Because the encounter maps are seriously maybe 30 squares across, and the monsters don't start at the far end, they start in the middle. And its badwrongfun not to use them.

But really, the encounter design for 4e involves tight spaces and small maps because its more 'dramatic' (and isn't 'balanced' if the players use tactics). The distance greatbow is pretty much useless unless the DM is designing his own encounters and, by 4e standards, doing them wrong.



Hmm. I'd more classify it as trivial, circumstantial power for the first 20 levels, and marginal at 21st+.

[Psychic Robot]

Dave Noonan was QQing about unrealistic ranged weapon ranges in 3e. Apparently, realism only applies when the developer's penis looks tiny.

[Elennsar]

Apparently. 3e has ridiculous weapon ranges, but it has a lot of ridiculous crap if unrealistic is something you intend to edit out.

4e has not edited a lot of it out, therefore "we're trying to make the game more realistic" is bull.

[Psychic Robot]

...Especially given that everything is less realistic in 4e.

[Talisman]

Making the game "more realistic" is almost always bull.
RPGs aren't mean to recreate reality. They're meant to simulate a specific type of reality - Heroic Fantasy, Gritty Cyberpunk, Shiney Sci-Fi, etc.

[Elennsar]

Yeah. Even if you did want to represent reality, reality is way too big and complicated to represent every possibility. The best you can do is this.

If most people would die from X, you need to figure out what thing makes those exceptions exceptions. "Being PCs" is bogus. But "being just plain better than most people" might work.

Besides that sort of thing, its not possible even if desirable.