|
StuffNo, you're right. I do not want you, or anyone else, to stop offering your opinions.
I see the differences in the synthesist, and the Warg idea, but invariably, unless you mechanicly make it inpossible, someone will try to "wear" a bear into combat. Then we have the same thing. That's my only concern.
They could, but it would be mechanically disadvantageous. Synthesist makes up for the loss of action economy in other ways, but this wouldn't, in fact considering the focus on teamwork feats and such with the AC this would be a terrible thing to do in combat unless you really need the AC to do something you can't manage with a handle animal check "Lassie! Go around the corner and press the floor tiles in the order left, right, right, left, right right before we all get crushed in this trash compactor!" can't really be conveyed with a handle animal roll.
Calling it "like magic jar" or "warging" or any other term does not make it something it's not.Except that is exactly what we are arguing for.
You aren't wearing the animal "like translucent, living armor." You are taking control of the animal to do things you couldn't do in your body.
Serious question, have you seen Game of Thrones or read the books?
That is what we are talking about.
I've read all through Dance with Dragons. I'm waiting for the next book. I'll leave out my favorite moments so I don't spoil it for others.
If you wanted to make this a unique ability... I guess you could make it minutes/day or hours/day and allow the Beastlord/Hunter whatever to take over ANY animal with a will save (Animal Companions can freely allow you to infest them).
I don't like having your body be helpless though. I get the theme, but I don't see how this is that much different from "becoming a bird" with Shapeshifting (and still having your animal companion able to move freely) versus taking over your animal companion (and making yourself helpless in the process and leaving your animal companion in the void - do you share their meat bag as two souls?).
I guess that's my whole point. Other than the "soul goes into an animal" versus "turn into any animal", I don't see how this is that much different from Wild Shape as it is being presented now (except more limited in choices). Wild Shape already gives you use the animals abilities and speak with them.
If you extend this to include Magical Beasts and other arcane type beasts, you're starting to go outside the realm of Hunter (as a Druid/Ranger mix).
|
*edit* this was asked by Sean K. Reynolds to be posted in the sticky.
im sorry to be nonproductive but isnt a ranger a fighter/druid mix? so why do we need a ranger/druid mix also? seems like this slot could have gone to a monk/cleric mix or even a thurge style character who blends arcane and devine magic, like a sorcerer(or wizard)/cleric mix.
this class just seems way unnecessary, almost like the ranger isnt enough of a caster so you're trying to rebuild it into one. i know this wont get the "hunter" removed from the ACG, this is more for my understanding.
They could, but it would be mechanically disadvantageous. Synthesist makes up for the loss of action economy in other ways, but this wouldn't, in fact considering the focus on teamwork feats and such with the AC this would be a terrible thing to do in combat unless you really need the AC to do something you can't manage with a handle animal check "Lassie! Go around the corner and press the floor tiles in the order left, right, right, left, right right before we all get crushed in this trash compactor!" can't really be conveyed with a handle animal roll.StuffNo, you're right. I do not want you, or anyone else, to stop offering your opinions.
I see the differences in the synthesist, and the Warg idea, but invariably, unless you mechanicly make it inpossible, someone will try to "wear" a bear into combat. Then we have the same thing. That's my only concern.
No, but that's what a Familiar does. And if we make an animal companion like a familiar, then we begin to step on other classes' toes (like the Wizard).
*edit* this was asked by Sean K. Reynolds to be posted in the sticky.
im sorry to be nonproductive but isnt a ranger a fighter/druid mix? so why do we need a ranger/druid mix also? seems like this slot could have gone to a monk/cleric mix or even a thurge style character who blends arcane and devine magic, like a sorcerer(or wizard)/cleric mix.
this class just seems way unnecessary, almost like the ranger isnt enough of a caster so you're trying to rebuild it into one. i know this wont get the "hunter" removed from the ACG, this is more for my understanding.
I suspect the unter stemmed from a lack of a 6/9 nature guy?
They could, but it would be mechanically disadvantageous. Synthesist makes up for the loss of action economy in other ways, but this wouldn't, in fact considering the focus on teamwork feats and such with the AC this would be a terrible thing to do in combat unless you really need the AC to do something you can't manage with a handle animal check "Lassie! Go around the corner and press the floor tiles in the order left, right, right, left, right right before we all get crushed in this trash compactor!" can't really be conveyed with a handle animal roll.StuffNo, you're right. I do not want you, or anyone else, to stop offering your opinions.
I see the differences in the synthesist, and the Warg idea, but invariably, unless you mechanicly make it inpossible, someone will try to "wear" a bear into combat. Then we have the same thing. That's my only concern.
Teamwork feats aside, if this AC is buffed above and beyond a normal AC, something akin to an Eidolon, then no, it may not be mechanicly disadvantageous.
But I'll leave it at that. I don't want to go down this rabbit hole per se, until we know more about how this class is changing :)Good points, though.
Design Manager
|
I suspect the unter stemmed from a lack of a 6/9 nature guy?*edit* this was asked by Sean K. Reynolds to be posted in the sticky.
im sorry to be nonproductive but isnt a ranger a fighter/druid mix? so why do we need a ranger/druid mix also? seems like this slot could have gone to a monk/cleric mix or even a thurge style character who blends arcane and devine magic, like a sorcerer(or wizard)/cleric mix.
this class just seems way unnecessary, almost like the ranger isnt enough of a caster so you're trying to rebuild it into one. i know this wont get the "hunter" removed from the ACG, this is more for my understanding.
Kind of a "bridge the gap" idea. I really do think that there is a place for the Hunter, and that they're pretty close to it, they just need to shave off some of this baggage it's carrying over from its parent classes. People keep comparing it to the druid because it uses the druid spell list and retains some of the druid weapons and armor restrictions, but in theory this guys is supposed to be closer to a somewhat more mystical version of the Beastmaster Ranger Archetype (or such is my impression). They need to adjust the proficiencies to be less druid-y more animalistic fighter-y; make him more raised by [wolves, bears, tigers, etc.], less druid lite. I also am not at all against the Hunter's aspects being tweaked to be a bit more potent and directly reflecting his choice in Animal Companion.
I'm hoping for:
AC is the badassed one
PC is the healer/buffer of the AC, and a competant (not the best) fighter that can support the AC in battle.
I'm hoping for:
AC is the badassed one
PC is the healer/buffer of the AC, and a competant (not the best) fighter that can support the AC in battle.
Well, it appears that what I've noticed has mostly been addressed. The power levels seem to need to be adjusted a wee bit in relation to others, otherwise fun class from what I've played of it thus far.
|
|
StuffNo, you're right. I do not want you, or anyone else, to stop offering your opinions.
I see the differences in the synthesist, and the Warg idea, but invariably, unless you mechanicly make it inpossible, someone will try to "wear" a bear into combat. Then we have the same thing. That's my only concern.
If the bear suit is better than the person suit, there is a fundamental problem with the class.
If you warg into your animal companion, you are giving up action economy.
If you warg into anything else, it should be far lower level/CR than you are.
This isn't wildshape, you gain nothing beyond what the animal can currently do.
|
|
Calling it "like magic jar" or "warging" or any other term does not make it something it's not.Except that is exactly what we are arguing for.
You aren't wearing the animal "like translucent, living armor." You are taking control of the animal to do things you couldn't do in your body.
Serious question, have you seen Game of Thrones or read the books?
That is what we are talking about.
I've read all through Dance with Dragons. I'm waiting for the next book. I'll leave out my favorite moments so I don't spoil it for others.
If you wanted to make this a unique ability... I guess you could make it minutes/day or hours/day and allow the Beastlord/Hunter whatever to take over ANY animal with a will save (Animal Companions can freely allow you to infest them).
I don't like having your body be helpless though. I get the theme, but I don't see how this is that much different from "becoming a bird" with Shapeshifting (and still having your animal companion able to move freely) versus taking over your animal companion (and making yourself helpless in the process and leaving your animal companion in the void - do you share their meat bag as two souls?).
I guess that's my whole point. Other than the "soul goes into an animal" versus "turn into any animal", I don't see how this is that much different from Wild Shape as it is being presented now (except more limited in choices). Wild Shape already gives you use the animals abilities and speak with them.
Because if I become a bird, when I arrive somewhere, I can then turn back into a person, in that location I've traveled to. Also, since I am not actually a bird, but a wild shaped person, I can cast spells, etc...
That is substantially more powerful.
If I warg into a bird, I can't do much of anything other than watch. I am a bird, not a person changed into a bird. I have bird hit points, bird abilities.
I'm a bird with the mind of the hunter but no other change.
Speaking with animals does little good when the animals aren't intelligent. And my Animal Companion may be able to follow some instructions, but that isn't the same as me entering my animal companion to use their senses with my brain.
Having the body be helpless is part of the limiting factor. I would add having the ability to Warg into a nearby animal (or your companion) when you are helpless, as that creates interesting option. (If you've read through Dance with the Dragons you know what I'm talking about)
This is not the synthesist or wild shape. The closest is magic jar for willing animal companions and later low HD animals.
|
|
Teamwork feats aside, if this AC is buffed above and beyond a normal AC, something akin to an Eidolon, then no, it may not be mechanicly disadvantageous.
But I'll leave it at that. I don't want to go down this rabbit hole per se, until we know more about how this class is changing :)
Good points, though.
Fair enough until we see the changes, but if the Animal Companion alone isn't goings to be > The Animal Companion and a PC.
|
It seems to me if you want to link the Hunter and his companion more than a Ranger or Druid already do the best way would to make that connection
a Physic Connection.
1st level Putting on the Skin: the hunter/Beastlord gains Physic powers an empathic connection to your animal companion this link allows you to feel and sense what your companion is feeling and sensing. You can link with your companion as a swift action. If your companion is killed while you are linked to him you must make a will save of 15 or be stunned for 1 round. Range is 400 ft +10ft per level.
4th level. Your link with your companion improves you may now see, hear and taste what you companion is sensing and the range starts at 1 mile at 4th level and 1 additional mile per 4 levels.
2nd level the Hunter/Beastlord gains beast speech he learns one animal language [ie bear wolf tiger etc.] and 1 additional animal language per 2 levels.
The Hunter/Beast Lord should gain a flat +1 per level to Survival and Handle animal This would represent his close connection to he land.
At 3rd level the hunter gains a natural healing power he can heal himself or his companion at 1d8 at 3rd level and 1d8 per level there after.
The Hunter/beast lord's Companion would use an alternate Companion table that buffs the Companion about 30% over his 20 levels.
I don't know how to attach and excel spread sheet to this post so if anyone is interested in seeing the table I could PM it to them.
I am against the direction of the class getting inside animal brains.
I like it. It is certainly more interesting.
Want to try to bundle in increasing attack bonuses (or other bonuses) to animal companions (summon nature's ally) of certain types as well?
Or is that flying to close to the sun?
Fun non-attack ally bonus
Owl: (in addition to the stuff you listed) Animal companions that begin as small sized creatures and have a fly speed may deliver touch spells as a wizard's familiar.Actually, what I think would be super good and super flavorful is this:
The Hunter is learning these neat tricks to fight more like an animal right? So lets give the Companion the ability to fight more like a person!
So, at the same levels when the hunter is getting his bonus feat/skill/ability from the animal focus ability I wrote up, the companion gets to pick a fighting style that emulates the way that humans fight. This increases the companion's access to feats and seems to be a perfect pairing flavor-wise.
So, Animal Focus Part 2.
At 1st level, a Hunter's animal companion learns how to copy the tactics and fighting techniques of humanoids. He chooses one type of humanoid at 1st level, such as “Dwarves.” The Companion selects one ability or feat from the Companion Focus list for that type (see below). If the Companion Focus requires the Companion to make a more specific choice (such as what skill to use with Skill Focus), this choice is permanent and cannot be changed.
At 5th, 10th, and 15th-level, the Companion chooses another humanoid type and selects one Companion Focus ability from that type’s list, as well as an additional ability from any one list of a humanoid type he’s selected (including the one just chosen, if so desired). If a companion focus ability grants a bonus feat, the Companion does not need to meet the prerequisites for that feat.
Dwarf: Bonus Feat: Medium Armor Proficiency, The Companion's speed is no longer reduced by wearing armor or barding, +2 to saving throws vs....
This is an amazing idea! I really really like this.
With the Hunter we have a class with 3/4 BAB, 6 level spell casting, restrictive weapon and armor proficiencies, and a companion.
Where have I seen that before... That's right, the Summoner.
The worst Eidolon is already better than the best Animal Companion. They have more BAB, more armor, more STR/DEX, more Skills, and Evolution Points exacerbate the issue. Low cost Evolutions allow the Eidolon to more easily deal with damage reduction, gain more attacks, defenses, and damage. Over time, the Eidolon is capable of becoming whatever the party needs it to be. A tiger just becomes a bigger tiger.
If the Animal Companion is going to be a central theme to the class and a mechanic worth giving up the Druid's spellcasting then it needs better progression.
Consider adding level based boosts to the Companion. To their Hit bonus, HD, ability scores, skills, and saves. Let it bypass damage reduction with its attacks similar to a Monk. It needs to be more than a Druid's companion.
Or perhaps make the companion a bit more customizable. Maybe if there was some sort of system of upgrades to choose, maybe based on a point system. Perhaps some sort of gradual-change-over-time-to-better-fit-its-environment points. These could allow the Hunter to ensure the companion remains relevant.
Indeed, to me this is the most important thing for the hunter right now. Though I would not mind more weapon proficiencies and having animal focus become minute/level, with uses being in increments of minutes instead of the 1/day + one more every x levels.
While the summoner comparison might be valid, I think they are going for functionally different things. The way the classes are built, the hunter seems much more melee oriented. Also, comparing the druid and hunter isn't a useful endeavor. While it's true that the druid is better and has more utility than the hunter it isn't a useful comparison. No one would compare a wizard and a fighter. The druid is a full caster, and as a result better than anything that isn't a full caster.
However, the hunter doesn't need to be better than the druid. It's doing its own thing. It should focus on the unique class skills, and how the mixture of class skills from the two parent classes interact in new ways. Will it be better than the druid. Never. Will it be better than a ranger? maybe.
Also, I really think the animal focus should stack. I know the devs said they didn't want it too. However, as it is a class ability i think they should reconsider. A Barbarian's strength bonuses while raging stack with magical items. The ability has a set duration, so it's not going to be game breaking.
Yes, the Hunter needs to focus on what its supposed to be good at. Fighting in tandem with a animal companion. It would be better at this if it gained more weapon proficiencies and if the animal was buffed. Even if the animal was brought to D10 HD like the eidolon, it would not overthrow the summoner because the summoner still has access to evolution points. We just want a more durable companion to use the Hunter's class features with. After all, this beast will share teamwork feats with us.
However, the hunter doesn't need to be better than the druid. It's doing its own thing.
It should be better at melee combat than a druid, I think.
Opening the class to martial weapon proficiency would allow the class to be squired by the squired feat. This may have unintended results, but probably would not be gamebreaking. If not opened to martial weapons, this class should at least be opened to a few martial and even exotic weapons. For instance, as a hunter I believe it should be proficient with the net. It would help it fight better in melee by allowing it to pin someone down, then move in to flank with his animal companion.
Proficiency with the stone age weapons from ultimate combat would also work, since they are honestly quite strong martial weapons that more fit a hunter than a lucerne hammer or greatsword. Handaxes and kukris would be nice too, as they fit an "outdoorsy" class like this.
One of the most important things is really the quality of teamwork feats in this book. The teamwork feat class feature is potentially incredible depending on them. After all, it can change teamwork feats with a standard action!
As for class features affecting the animal companion, I think that there should be a "distraction" system, where foes take a penalty to their AC against the attacks of their hunter if damaged by the animal companion and vice versa, that way the bonus can be traded around depending on if the hunter or the companion act first each round.
And I would have the companion use the eidolon's chart for hit die and BAB. Animal companions can really fall off at higher levels, so this additional HP and accuracy would really help.
Is there any particular reason that Squire is substantially more dangerous on the Hunter than on any of the classes that currently qualify for it? I guess you could have the Squire take teamwork feats and then you'd have another person to use them with, but that seems somewhat marginal.
"Better Melee Combatant than the Druid" is actually a fairly tall order; by the time the Hunter is even making iterative attacks, the druid can turn into a giant dinosaur or whatever.
Yeah, I didn't consider it gamebreaking either actually. I was just stating it since Paizo might be against it for flavor reason. Though if the animal companion is buffed, it might make an entourage build much stronger. Probably won't be an issue though.
And I agree, wildshape is hard to measure up to. Instead the Hunter should focus on being one of the best users of teamwork feats, being better at skills than a druid, and (hopefully) getting something special (better animal companion, unique interactions with it, good weapons).
I'd imagine that if the Hunter was in a part built around teamwork (cavalier, tactician fighter, inquisitor all could help) then it could be pretty interesting.
About Animal Companion...
As many stil have mentioned, AC should be Magical Beast.
So, for its creature feature, AC gains d10 HD, good BAB, Darkvision 60ft, and Low-light vision.
I think it may gain some familiar abilities (Empathic Link, Speak with Master, Spell resistance, and Scry on companion).
In this case, for the purpose of determining abilities of AC, Hunter level can stack with effective Druid level (AC is normal Druid companion) , but Druid/Ranger level cannot stack with Hunter level (She may gain two companions).
About Animal Focus...
-Elephant 1st:none -> 8th:reach +5ft -> 15th reach +10ft
-Elemental (select one energy type) 1st: resist5 -> 8th: resist10 -> 15th: resist15
-Sun 1st:her natural weapons treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming DR
8th: her natural weapons also treated as her alignment weapons for the purpose of overcoming DR
15th: DR10/Magic
-Moon 1st: none
8th: her natural weapons treated as silver weapons for the purpose of overcoming DR
15th: DR10/Silver
-Star 1st: none
8th: her natural weapons treated as cold iron weapons for the purpose of overcoming DR
15th: DR10/cold iron
These DR cannot stack each other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It should be better at melee combat than a druid, I think.
However, the hunter doesn't need to be better than the druid. It's doing its own thing.
I agree, especially when working together with its AC.
Wouldn't it be better to go with a second animal companion with feats rather than a squire? I would imagine that the other companion would also be able to use the hunters teamwork feats that way.
|
|
Ok, right thread this time.
Re: Armor and Weapon proficiencies, I would like the armor restriction to be the same as Druid rather than just saying no heavy armor. There is a good fluff rrason why druids can't wear metal armors but I can't see an ingame justification fir banning just heavy armors from the Hunter.
I too would like either all martial weapons or at least expand the list. A klar or scizore wielding Hunter is just too cool
No one would compare a wizard and a fighter.
You're right; because those are completely different classes. But what we have here are hybrids; this IS a druid and ranger mixed. Therefore, the comparisons to druid are fair game. Why? Because this class needs to stand out from the classes it's derived from.
As people have pointed out, currently it does not. It is a weaker druid with a severely under powered ability (Animal Focus) and a splash of Inquisitor (Hunter's Tactics).
That's why the comparison's are being made. As I and others have pointed out, there is not enough "ranger" in this mix and all we're seeing is druid. Not enough to stand out right now.
About Animal Companion...
As many stil have mentioned, AC should be Magical Beast.
So, for its creature feature, AC gains d10 HD, good BAB, Darkvision 60ft, and Low-light vision.
I still don't agree with this. Seems to be a more arcane flavor than what's intended here - nature hunter/predator. I think giving the animal companion bonuses at certain levels would increase it's viability without completing rewriting animal companion rules.
I think the animal companion should get an extra hit die, bonus to attack, an extra trick and/or bonus skills every even level (set in stone or chosen by player for more build variety). These are little things that would increase the overall power of the Animal Companion without needing to rewrite or come up with a huge set of new rules.
And I'm still advocating that more tricks (and being able to switch tricks like the Hunter would their teamwork feats) would make the animal more "intelligent" as it opens up a LOT more possibility in how they act.
|
|
Due to rules in PFSP. In PFSP even if you can have multiple animal companions you are restricted to one. So a class built around multiple animal companions. As the one thing thy do better then any other class will be tough to pull off. Along with the fact you will have a large chunk of there player base complaining about how bad the hunter is. In paizo PR branch PFSP. That is why there is little to no chance of them building the hunter with multiple animal companions at it's core.
More effort should be spent one the two key features. Animal Focus is staying how paizo implements it is up in the air at this point. Animal Companion is staying as they built it in to the core of the class. There have been a lot of good suggestions. I however doubt they will give it any thing that changes it to a magical beast, or gives it a unique advancement chart. Giving the hunter an ability or two that modifies the animal companion is the most likely. As that will keep other classes dipping hunter for the bonus. As of now the only other thing that needs looked at is the weapon and armor list. That paizo says there looking at now any how.
I posted my suggestions. There are some other good suggestions I have seen. What they do to the Animal Focus, and Animal Companion is up in the air till next week.
In PFSP even if you can have multiple animal companions you are restricted to one.
Thank you for reminding us of this (Pathfinder Society Play for those who don't know what PFSP stands for). Multiple pets is extremely unlikely (I'm 99.99% sure it would not happen) for a base class. There are already archetypes that fill that niche like Beastmaster and Packlord. We'll probably see a multiple animal companion archetype down the road for the Hunter.
Just because something is derived from two parent classes doesn't mean they should be held to the same standards. They are fundamentally different classes. The Druid is a tier 1 full caster. Anything that is not a full caster is going to be a "weaker druid with severely underpowered abilities". The same exact same thing can be said about the ranger. Just because they are parent classes, still doesn't mean they are worthwhile comparisons, as they *generally* function differently. You are correct though. They currently do have underpowered abilities.
It shouldn't be held to the same standards because it should be doing something different. Comparing it to the druid should be comparing oranges to some other citrus fruit. But currently it's comparing oranges to smaller oranges because the hunter fails to accomplish anything outside the scope of the druid and fails to even accomplish those things at the same level as the druid.
Just because something is derived from two parent classes doesn't mean they should be held to the same standards. They are fundamentally different classes. The Druid is a tier 1 full caster. Anything that is not a full caster is going to be a "weaker druid with severely underpowered abilities". The same exact same thing can be said about the ranger. Just because they are parent classes, still doesn't mean they are worthwhile comparisons, as they *generally* function differently. You are correct though. They currently do have underpowered abilities.
I wouldn't compare a ranger to a druid. The Ranger isn't playing the same game as the druid, and that's one of the things that are just a core assumption of the system.
The thing about the hunter that makes people compare it to druids is that there are nothing that sets it apart from the druid, and enables the "They're not about doing the same thing!" argument, whih is widely used to defend the existence of high-level rogues and fighters in a world where equal level mages posess the power to rewrite reality in several different ways. It's not neccesarily bad, it's just one of the core tenents of pathfinder and 3.5e. The Hunter manages to fall afoul of this tenent, while the ranger does not, because everything I could accomplish with a hunter build, I could do by being a druid, along with the fries that are the last 3 levels of spellcasting.
Agreed, something needs to be changed. Let's avoid going down the Druid versus Ranger path as that's best saved for a different portion of the messageboards.
As it is now, the Hunter needs some distinguishing features. With the update I'm hoping to see those features and finally see this class as distinct and unique (and not a watered down Druid with the ranger's Track ability).
Well...
A half orc Beastlord with his velociraptor (lovingly named EETYURFAYS)
should be able to do comperable over all damage compared to a druid, but it will most likely be all melee damage.
That's pretty neat. If they don't do that, one idea for an archetype might be a hunter that trades the animal companion for the Summoner's Summon Monster SLA, but for SNA instead, and the archetype is allowed to share teamwork feats and the Animal Focus boosts with anything summoned with SNA.Maybe this is dumb, but what do people think about giving the Hunter a spontaneous spell conversion list, like Clerics can spontaneously convert to Cure (or Inflict, if you're a necromancer or you make bad decisions) spells and Druids can convert to SNA?
One of the hallmarks of the Druid list is that it has piles of incredibly situational stuff, but it's not totally wrong to sometimes prepare some of those things if you have some idea that they might be useful, because you can always just make it an SNA spell instead, and SNA has property that it's widely useful in many situations. Similarly, casting cure spells with your slots as a cleric isn't exciting, it's a rare day where nobody gets hurt, so it's always something to do with your slots.
I was thinking that Hunters could have a conversion list that specifically focuses on their animal companions. It might involve creating some new spells, since there aren't interesting and generally applicable spells that benefit animals at every spell level, but it would let rangers prep the more situational druid spells more often without them going to waste so much.
I think they should just get a crazy summon nature's ally progression:
1 converts to SNA 1
2 converts to SNA 2
3 converts to SNA 3 or [4 starting at level 8 for two 3rd level spells prepared or one 4th level spell]
4 converts to SNA 5 or [6 starting at level 12 for two 4th level spells prepared or one 5th level spell]
5 converts to SNA 7
6 converts to SNA 8 or [9 starting at level 18 for two 6th level spells prepared]Then let nature's allies share teamwork feats with the Hunter and his pet.
No no no no NO!!!
THIS is one of the biggest problems with the Summoner, and one of the reasons why so many GMs, my own included, have banned the Summoner class from any games. The Summoner should NEVER have gotten SM as a spell-like ability, and especially not in a manner that breaks the rules. IF it was meant to have SM as a SLA, then it should still act as the spell, standard to cast and 1 sec/level duration, and not the current, hideously broken manner it now is. If anything, Summoner should have gotten spontaneous SM by sacrificing a spell much as a druid does for SNA. Add to that a full BAB and d10 hit die for the eidolon, and we have a broken class with a companion that deals heavier damage per round than the party fighter, and now you want the Hunter to go in THAT direction as well? Make him a divine version of Summoner? Yeah, the class is weak, and yes, I can see a need for improvement, but if you make him like the Summoner, you'll just get yet another class that nobody wants in their campaigns because it's "broken and too powerful".I really don't think the Hunter's animal companion necessarily needs to be more powerful than the druid's animal companion- it really doesn't. What it DOES need is a stronger link to the Hunter more akin to a familiar's link. One feature I would like to see is the Hunter being able to mentally "ride" his companion by mind-linking with it and being able to use it's senses; see what it sees, hear what it hears, etc. For example, something like the witch's Beast Eye hex.
Yeah, I'm thinking old school here, but when I first heard about this class, I was hoping for something like the old Beastmaster movies/TV show. From what I've seen so far, you're off to a good start, and while I think the CONCEPT behind the Summoner is a good reference point, don't go down that venue, please, as the Summoner already needs a revamp itself (and we probably won't see that until the next printing of the APG).
Hey folks,
There is a great post in the general discussion forums that notes what Jason talked about during a podcast about changes to the classes.
The Hunter is still being approached by how I originally saw them too, the pet class that works together to bring down foes. Take a look if you want to get some insight into the next round of playtesting.
Can't wait to see the changes they made and test them out.
I still fall into the group that believes that the AC needs boosts. I do NOT like the idea of a magical beast, even an Awakened Animal (that becomes a magical beast subtyped Augmented Animal) does not get the Beastiary listing for magical beast. Those feature lists for creature types are really more for building your own monsters than for applying like a template, hence all of the arguments about Aasimars getting free proficiencies.
(1) I think that a nice level 10 ability would be to add either the Advanced or Giant template to the animal companion, Hunter's choice.
(2) I would like an advanced version of Share Spells that allows the Hunter to cast touch-range spells on his companion from a distance, and possibly even share spell durations between himself and his companion on spells that have durations (aspect spells, barkskin etc.)
(3) The Hunter needs some better proficiencies, Martial weapons would be the easiest way to go, but at least an expanded list would be good.
(4) Although this can be done with teamwork feats, I would like to see some sort of static bonus for the Hunter/Companion for attacking the same target. (I would prefer this as a class feature for balance reasons)
(5) Finally, I think that a few bonus feats (probably at 6, 12, 18) for both the Hunter and his Companion would REALLY help things out. This could be very similar to combat style with limited selections to help keep things in check. Teamwork feats are cool, but it takes quite a few feats just to be able to, say, competently shoot a bow. The great advantage here would be allowing the Companion to pick from a list of feats that it does not need to qualify for. Most companions can never get Improved/Greater Trip, for example, and this would be a really good way to push the Hunter's AC above all the rest.
Give it the giant template on it and get a siege tower put on its back. lol, perfect!
My only concern is now that I hear about "Broken Paw Gambit" we now have two feats where one is redundant. Altering them to be Hunter-only only cheapens it and illustrates the fundamental flaw of teamwork feats to begin with.
If it's Hunter only, why not just make them like Hunter Talents (rogue talents) rather than introducing them as Teamwork feats? I think if it's a teamwork feat, it should be usable by ANY class that wants to take them.
As it is, they've just taken an already made feat (Broken Wing Gambit) and just altered it to affect the animal companion since they can't achieve 5 ranks in Bluff.
My only concern is now that I hear about "Broken Paw Gambit" we now have two feats where one is redundant. Altering them to be Hunter-only only cheapens it and illustrates the fundamental flaw of teamwork feats to begin with.
If it's Hunter only, why not just make them like Hunter Talents (rogue talents) rather than introducing them as Teamwork feats? I think if it's a teamwork feat, it should be usable by ANY class that wants to take them.
As it is, they've just taken an already made feat (Broken Wing Gambit) and just altered it to affect the animal companion since they can't achieve 5 ranks in Bluff.
Why would they need a specific feat? Hunters Tactics lets the companion use the Hunter's teamwork feats as if it had them.... so only the Hunter would need to have the requisite 5 ranks in bluff to get the feat, and then the companion is simply treated as having it.
The line is this: "The hunter’s and companion’s positioning and actions must still meet the prerequisites listed in the teamwork feat for them to receive the listed bonus." So the Companion needs to fulfill the requirements to activate the feat, but nowhere does it say that they need to have the requirements needed to TAKE the feat.
I wonder if this may get us an official Dire template? ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
THIS is one of the biggest problems with the Summoner, and one of the reasons why so many GMs, my own included, have banned the Summoner class from any games. The Summoner should NEVER have gotten SM as a spell-like ability, and especially not in a manner that breaks the rules. IF it was meant to have SM as a SLA, then it should still act as the spell, standard to cast and 1 sec/level duration, and not the current, hideously broken manner it now is. If anything, Summoner should have gotten spontaneous SM by sacrificing a spell much as a druid does for SNA. Add to that a full BAB and d10 hit die for the eidolon, and we have a broken class with a companion that deals heavier damage per round than the party fighter, and now you want the Hunter to go in THAT direction as well? Make him a divine version of Summoner? Yeah, the class is weak, and yes, I can see a need for improvement, but if you make him like the Summoner, you'll just get yet another class that nobody wants in their campaigns because it's "broken and too powerful".
I disagree: There are archetypes for the Summoner that weaken (or even give up) the Eidolon in exchange for improving the Summon Monster ability.
The consensus on these archetypes, more or less, is that they're bad deals. The "problem" with the Summoner is in the Eidolon, and IMO it's not actually a problem; It just does what melee/skill monkey classes should be able to do, but can't.