| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After playing the revised version I think the changes that were made are moving in the right direction. I do think that it is still under-powered compared to similar classes. I like how the power boost was focused around the companion and wouldn't mind seeing more of this. Some unfiltered, caffeine induced ideas:
-Larger hit dice for companion
-Better BAB for companion
-Some kind of bane like single combat or single enemy buff for the companion only (sick 'em fluffy)
One of my players and I ran a 4 encounter playtest of a level 7 human hunter last night.
The Hunter was a Human built with the popular 20 pt buy sunk into a high strength, dexterity and a moderate wisdom. This hunter had no stats below a 10 and was equipped with standard WBL for his level. His most relevant pieces of gear were a +1 Composite (+4) Flaming Longbow, a +2 Chain Shirt and a Belt of Incredible Dexterity +2. The animal companion was the popular large cat equipped with +1 Studded Leather Barding. The hunters relevant feats were deadly aim, point blank shot, coordinated strike, distracting charge, improved initiative, weapon focus (Longbow) and rapid shot. The cats relevant feats were power attack, improved natural armor and armor proficiency (Lt) and multiattack. Working together as a team without any spells or class abilities to buff him the Hunter could attain a +16 attack total on the opening round. Pretty impressive for a 3/4 BAB class with only a +5 BAB at this level.
The encounters were run as stand alone encounters with the Hunter & Cat allowed to completely heal and recover between each encounter because all the encounters were conducted solo.
The first encounter was in wooded terrain versus a CR 7 Hill Giant. The hill giant was handily defeated in only three rounds with the expenditure of only a single cure moderate wounds spell. Twice during this encounter the hunter was forced to attack at a penalty due to his companion giving the giant cover.
The second encounter occurred in a campsite when the hunter and cat were surprise attacked by a CR 7 invisible stalker. The stalker was defeated in four rounds after the surprise round and only a single casting of Barkskin was expended by the hunter. The Animal Focus- Aspect of the Wolf proved quite useful in this encounter by providing the cat with the scent ability.
The third encounter occurred in a tomb when the hunter freed a CR 8 morgh from its burial chamber. The morgh was defeated in in just three rounds. The cat was paralyzed in round two. The Animal Focus-Aspect of the Bull was quite useful in this encounter enabling the cat to successfully grapple the Morgh with a grab attempt that would have missed otherwise.
The fourth encounter was another campsite encounter with a CR 9 young blue dragon. The dragon swooped into the campsite, used its dazzling display feat to debuff the pair and promptly got grappled by the cat. Once again the Animal Focus-Aspect of the bull being the difference between failure and success of the grapple as well as three more attacks during this battle. The hunter was once again forced to heal his cat with a cure moderate wounds spell mid-battle, but the dragon was handily defeated in only three rounds. Other than the cure spell the only resources expended during the battle was when the hunter cast barkskin on the cat during the opening round.
Over the course of the playtest the hunter took exactly zero points of damage and, when attacking averaged 16 points of damage per attack. The Cat averaged 28 points of damage per round (my player was not rolling that well). The cats damage output on a good round (when it landed all three attacks) was usually about 40 points.
Also did the hunter waste a round every encounter to activate flaming on his bow it is a standard action to do so?
What?
To be fair, there's no reason the character couldn't have spent 3 rounds at the start of the "adventure" (i.e., before the encounters started) activating all three energy bonuses on the weapon, and have them active until the character turned them off.
Weslocke said in his play test that a +1 flaming bow was used.
yes flaming, corrosive, shocking and frost all require a standard action. to activate each. That why I said wasting because you have to waste around of attack to add 1d6 elemental damage for the rest of the encounter. If you have flaming, and shocking on it you have to waste two rounds, one for the flaming and another for shocking. Most DM don't realize this is a standard action.here is skr quote from thread confirm standard action to activate. http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pprn?Using-CommandWord-Items#6
1. Activating an item's command word is a standard action. If your command word is "fire," and you're in initiative, you have to spend your standard action saying the word AT the sword with the proper inflection, you can't activate it for free (without spending an action).
2. You can give several actions the same command word, but that doesn't get around the standard-action-to-activate-each. It just means you only have to remember one word, not multiple words (which means your allies have an easier time using those items to save your life if you're bleeding to death).
3. Activating flaming doesn't deactivate any other abilities on the weapon. If your sword has three different command words, you can spend three standard actions activating each to have them all active at the same time. If the sword has the same command word for all three special abilities, you can spend three standard actions speaking that command word to activate the three special abilities, and have them activated at the same time.
"Until another command is given" means "... specifically to turn off that weapon special ability with the 'off' command." It doesn't mean "any command directed at the weapon turns off this ability" or "any command you speak turns off this ability" or "any command anyone in the world speaks at any time turns off this ability."
I read it as a standard action every round for some reason. However, I can't see the difference in an activated and unactivated bow as long as there is no arrow nocked.
The hunter is not a shapeshifting class. It might gain that ability from spells, but it is not intended as a class that automatically gets shapeshifting.
I could see a Hunter archetype that traded Animal Aspect for a limited shapeshifting ability. Preferably limited to whatever type of animal companion the hunter possesses. (I befriend a tiger so that I can shapeshift into one and together we maul people in beautiful harmony.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The hunter is not a shapeshifting class. It might gain that ability from spells, but it is not intended as a class that automatically gets shapeshifting.I could see a Hunter archetype that traded Animal Aspect for a limited shapeshifting ability. Preferably limited to whatever type of animal companion the hunter possesses. (I befriend a tiger so that I can shapeshift into one and together we maul people in beautiful harmony.)
So, a core Druid, but with randomly more limitations? ;)
Ladies and Gentlebeings, please allow me to introduce you to Baudian the Black (aka Baudian Black-Cloak, Baudian the Blade, Baudian Boneyard, Baudian Whisperdeath, and by many other names).
Those of you who have followed my posts will recognize this fellow from my talk of my Council of Thieves campaign. Remember? The Charisma Rogue who can survive?
In that scenario a frost giant would have been better because there the terrain limits the dragon's ability. Compare that to most PFAP encounters where the opposite is generally true.
I'm not sure a solo test is best to begin with. Given most games involve several players a solo encounter might not give the entire picture.
In a party you can together be prepared for everything and then test how effective the class is in it's given role, in comparison to other classes, and for problematic interactions when the encounters are scaled up.
If you're solo testing because of real life limitations (understandable) perhaps comparing the hunter to other similar classes could illuminate the classes strengths/shortcomings.
Still no official comment on spontaneous spellcasting? :/
AFAIK there is a separate sub-forum for posting playtest results, this is discussion thread.
Additionally, Cambrian, I will make sure to do as you suggest and offer a comparison to the capabilities of the parents classes. That is a good idea, and I thank you for it.
I know Quandary. I posted there. My post sat completely unanswered for more than three hours before I copied and pasted it here. I apologize for taking the thread off-topic.
We do group playtests, it's just not until the weekend. The last group playtest was my hunter, a skald, and a brawler. It ended with the other two all but twiddling their thumbs while I walked through our encounters - it really only helped me that there were more people to beat up on the battlefield and a bonus from the skald. Nothing lasted long enough for the brawler to do a whole lot, but it was a lower level playtest.
We'll try out a frost giant, soon, if we do another solo test. In the interest of this not being a playtest for weapon qualities and it being vulnerable to fire, I'll make the bow +2 instead, to keep things more fair.
The problem with the playtest, in my opinion, is What did you do that could not be done better by a Ranger or a Druid?
...Basically, the precise companion ability is granting the hunter the Precise Shot feat, but only with respect to whether or not her pet provides a –4 penalty for being in melee with the hunter's opponent.
That penalty doesn't have anything to do with cover, cover is a separate thing.
The "shooting into melee" rule gives you a –4 penalty on your attack roll, the "other creature providing cover" rule gives your opponent a +4 bonus to its AC.
I can see the case for changing precise companion into just Precise Shot as a bonus feat, or even making this ability "the animal companion never makes anyone take the –4 penalty for firing into melee." It would be easier to use, and not invalidated by actually taking Precise Shot.
What if instead the ability instead countered the cover rather than shooting into melee? That way the ability would stack with precise shot and assist the 3/4 BAB hunter in hitting an opponent (important for using the teamwork feats).
The ability would still provide the same net benefit, would still be impeded by anything else engaging the target. It also would be more interesting than just giving a preset feat; however, it might be too good stacking with precises shot.
I know Quandary. I posted there. My post sat completely unanswered for more than three hours before I copied and pasted it here. I apologize for taking the thread off-topic.
As long as it's posted there, that's probably the most important thing.
Not every playtest is supposed to be "answered", it's just material for Paizo,and it's not like any particular playtest is particularly important in the first place, it's just another tree in the forest.
Personally, I probably would've just posted a link to that post/thread rather than re-posting the whole thing,
but I wrote that without knowing that it WAS (originally) posted in the right thread where the playtests are all in one place.
The problem with the playtest, in my opinion, is What did you do that could not be done better by a Ranger or a Druid?
Seemed like (s)he made that pretty clear, mentioning the Aspect of Wolf/Bull on the latter 3 encounters and the difference that made.
Apparently the first Hill Giant encounter didn't use any Aspect or it didn't make a difference.As far as the Aspects go, there isn't many other classes with full Companion and auxiliary buffing method,
Evangelist Cleric with Animal Domain + Boon Companion would be rather close,
although just a Druid using Spells to buff, and perhaps another buff via Domain would also work similar?
I don't know the context of their playtests, perhaps taking appropriate CR encounters out of Paizo AP/module/PFS scenarios would be best?
If (s)he gives the relevant details, it can't hurt much as another playtest data point, IMHO.
The problem with the playtest, in my opinion, is What did you do that could not be done better by a Ranger or a Druid?Seemed like (s)he made that pretty clear, mentioning the Aspect of Wolf/Bull on the latter 3 encounters and the difference that made.
I don't know the context of their playtests, perhaps taking appropriate CR encounters out of Paizo AP/module/PFS scenarios would be best?
If (s)he gives the relevant details, it can't hurt much as another playtest data point, IMHO.
How so? A Big Cat has scent anyways and only one of you needs it. A Druid who casts Bull's Strength on their pet has a better bonus at 7th level.
It also doesn't help that the Druid is an all around better combatant and caster.
|
I love the changes here. Indefinite, switchable bonus on the companion is gold - I can throw Wolf or Falcon on it outside of combat, making it hard for us to be ambushed, and then once the fight starts I switch it to Tiger/Bull/Bear (or Stag/Snake/Frog once I'm rolling in dough and can afford a physical perfection belt for it) for combat bonuses.
The one thing I don't like is Precise Companion - it feels like a waste, because the Hunter is likely going to want Precise Shot anyway due to the melee players in the party (and all the archery feats that require it.) Can we have Precise Companion provide an additional bonus if you get the Precise Shot feat, just so it isn't rendered redundant at later levels?
Still no official comment on spontaneous spellcasting? :/
How do you think making this a limited-spells-known-with-spontaneous-caster improves it?
The hunter is not a shapeshifting class. It might gain that ability from spells, but it is not intended as a class that automatically gets shapeshifting.
Ya, I'll enjoy vermin life!
By the way, Hunter can fly by Verminshape spell, should fly add to class skill list?| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still no official comment on spontaneous spellcasting? :/How do you think making this a limited-spells-known-with-spontaneous-caster improves it?
Because it's more helpful in combat, and it feels right for the class. It frees the hunter up to just keep dropping things like barkskin, magic fang or cures, or ranger spells she might use constantly, like gravity bow. Simply put, the hunter doesn't need some prepared diversity, she needs the ability to cast helpful spells repeatedly.
Read back through the hunter thread and see how many people support this idea. It's gotten a lot of votes, and I'd imagine exactly for the reasons I stated above. :)
Just personal opinion, but I've always liked spontaneous better. I can just take the spells I like and not have to think about if I need one or three strong jaws for the day. I don't have to predict in advance how many cures I need. I can just use whatever I happen to need. It's significantly more convenient for a front-line combatant since I don't have to sigh because I didn't prepare enough buffs that day -- especially if I only have a limited number of spells to cast in a day. I'd much rather leave the situation and utility spells to someone with a larger spell list, like a wizard or cleric.Still no official comment on spontaneous spellcasting? :/How do you think making this a limited-spells-known-with-spontaneous-caster improves it?
Exactly. We've got full-casters and big-blasters for that. Keep it focused and immediately useful. :)
The problem with the playtest, in my opinion, is What did you do that could not be done better by a Ranger or a Druid?Seemed like (s)he made that pretty clear, mentioning the Aspect of Wolf/Bull on the latter 3 encounters and the difference that made.How so? A Big Cat has scent anyways and only one of you needs it. A Druid who casts Bull's Strength on their pet has a better bonus at 7th level.
It also doesn't help that the Druid is an all around better combatant and caster.
Right on, but how is that a problem with the playtest? It's giving data that you can interpret to say "this is on par with Druid/etc".
If that is the case from the class as-is, why don't you want to know that?I think you're mixing up your advocacy with playtest response (to be fair, so was Weslocke)
Which is why they should remain in a different thread IMHO.
As for discussion, it's clearcut enough to write: "Druid Bullstrength is on par with Aspect Buffs".
Cut and dry. That's the reality of the class currently, for good or bad, not a problem with the playtest.
The problem with the playtest, in my opinion, is What did you do that could not be done better by a Ranger or a Druid?Seemed like (s)he made that pretty clear, mentioning the Aspect of Wolf/Bull on the latter 3 encounters and the difference that made.How so? A Big Cat has scent anyways and only one of you needs it. A Druid who casts Bull's Strength on their pet has a better bonus at 7th level.
It also doesn't help that the Druid is an all around better combatant and caster.Right on, but how is that a problem with the playtest? It's giving data that you can interpret to say "this is on par with Druid/etc".
If that is the case from the class as-is, why don't you want to know that?
I think you're mixing up your advocacy with playtest response (to be fair, so was Weslocke)
Which is why they should remain in a different thread IMHO.
As for discussion, it's clearcut enough to write: "Druid Bullstrength is on par with Aspect Buffs".
Cut and dry. That's the reality of the class currently, for good or bad, not a problem with the playtest.
I agree. But some of that data was skewed and anecdotal. He didn't actually fight the Blue Dragon as a CR7 encounter. He fought him as a CR6 or lower due to extremely favorable terrain to him. Also note that number of participants on both sides skews things. He has twice as many actions as compared to the dragon. In the CR system that is shown on the enemy side when they outnumber you, the opposite is also true, when you outnumber the enemy the encounter is easier.
But my mistake, I should not have said "wrong." All data is valuable.
My point stands that the Hunter in that situation did nothing unique.
Exactly. We've got full-casters and big-blasters for that. Keep it focused and immediately useful. :)Just personal opinion, but I've always liked spontaneous better. I can just take the spells I like and not have to think about if I need one or three strong jaws for the day. I don't have to predict in advance how many cures I need. I can just use whatever I happen to need. It's significantly more convenient for a front-line combatant since I don't have to sigh because I didn't prepare enough buffs that day -- especially if I only have a limited number of spells to cast in a day. I'd much rather leave the situation and utility spells to someone with a larger spell list, like a wizard or cleric.Still no official comment on spontaneous spellcasting? :/How do you think making this a limited-spells-known-with-spontaneous-caster improves it?
I noticed in your fix thread that you shifted it to the number of Bard Spells Known and Per day. And made it spontaneous.
You do realize that is a direct nerf correct? Normally you balance Spontaneous casting with more spell slots.
I guess I agree there on Spontaneous Hunter Casting, because this class is ultimately an alternate take on Inquisitor:
both "more martial" 3/4 BAB 3/4 divine casters, Hunter with Nature connection vs. Inquisitor's Cleric/Pally heritage,
with both Druid and Cleric already being 3/4 BAB full divine casters so the design context is similar
(vs. Magus/Wizard where BAB and HD difference is already a difference)
Hunter with Companion as the main vehicle of combat, while Inquisitor is designed to prevail in combat more personally,
but otherwise the Spellcasting context is very similar for both...
I would honestly say that Hunter is an Alt-Class of Inquisitor (at least in the sense that Druid is a version of Cleric), except that the stark difference in 'name sake' class mechanics and Spell List differences sort of cover that up / justify not making an explicit connection "officially" (same as Druid/Cleric). I could see why somebody might then say "well let's be different for difference's sake, then" to further increase the individuation vs. Inquisitor, but I think that would be a mistake... The reasons why Spontaneous work well for Inquisitor still apply 100% to Hunter.
Simply further deepening the class ability differences in recognition of the fundamental divide: individual combat (Inquisitor) vs. proxy pet combat (Hunter), as well as Spell List differences, is more than enough to differentiate them adequately. People (including me) have posted suggestions on how to buff the Hunter's personal combat prowess, but I think that would be ignoring the Hunter's theme, which should be more or less as Pet-centric as the Summoner is (who doesn't need to stand as a primary combatant themself, although different builds may have more or less focus on their personal combat). To be clear, I think the Hunter probably should have a bit more focus on their personal combat than the Summoner, but this doesn't need to translate to "direct combat power", simply being in combat alongside the Pet could suffice (whether thru Flanking or other mechanics).
This is also why I strongly support a good custom spell list for Hunter, it needs and deserves as much as Inquisitor, Summoner, or the other Hybrid Classes. (A list 'partially' inherited from Druid, but with custom add-ons is more than reasonable though)
I noticed in your fix thread that you shifted it to the number of Bard Spells Known and Per day. And made it spontaneous.
You do realize that is a direct nerf correct? Normally you balance Spontaneous casting with more spell slots.
Not really true... that's only true for "Full Casters".
Compare Magus with Bard and Inquisitor. Exact same number of spell slots.(bar the minor difference in Cantrips/Orisons, which aren't spell slots anyways)
No reason why Paizo would change the standard spell slot tables for this, when it is just Inquisitor in Nature drag.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point is that people are concerned that the hunter PC (rather than the animal companion) is too weak, and switching from "full druid spell list, prepared caster" to "limited druid spell list, spontaneous caster" is a power-down for the hunter PC.
Okay, I'm actually going to count this like a poll.
In favor of spontaneous casting: Myself, Idar, Neo2151, DarkOne the Drow, KainPen, drakkonflye, Captain K., Quandary, ICPD, Dispari Scuro, Psyren
Against spontaneous casting: Jessie Scott
My point is that people are concerned that the hunter PC (rather than the animal companion) is too weak, and switching from "full druid spell list, prepared caster" to "limited druid spell list, spontaneous caster" is a power-down for the hunter PC.
Yes, it is a minor "power down", but it's more useful and appropriate. You compensate for it by making the hunter herself a little bit more capable combatant to match her companion. A combat style or something. We're talking a whole package here. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point is that people are concerned that the hunter PC (rather than the animal companion) is too weak, and switching from "full druid spell list, prepared caster" to "limited druid spell list, spontaneous caster" is a power-down for the hunter PC.
I also had that concern originally, but really the issue is whether the class as a whole is strong enough/works well enough, not the PC's personal power. Diverting the focus to bring the PC up to par PERSONALLY is just running against the over-all Pet centric design, which should be closer to Summoner (without the Summon SLAs, etc). Not to say the Hunter's personal combat is irrelevant, but it's usefulness very well may be primarily as enabler of the Pet (Teamwork, Flanking, Readied Action synergies, etc) more so than as something directly superior to generic 3/4 BAB melee on a personal level. (other non-combat abilities for the Hunter personally are fine and great)
Even for the personal-combat-focused Inquisitor AS WELL AS the Summoner, Spontaneous Casting really does seem to work out rather well, allowing spamming some buffs while also allowing some room for utility/etc. At this point with Feats, Favored Class, Rings/Pages of Spell Knowledge, and other means, Spells Known aren't quite such a hard limitation, and 3/4 or 1/2 casters in fact can leverage that quite well since their Spell Levels don't go up all the way so the price of Spells Known items like Rings/Pages is reasonable.
If there is desire for a broader spellcasting capability, I think that could probably work well with an Archetype, adding in Druid Domain Spells somehow, along with more synegy with the Casting Stat to counter a weakening of personal/Pet combat prowess.
------------------------------
Part of the Hunter's issue with how it was received/understood is that many people were thrown off by the name "Hunter" which suggests more personal combat (which is why the name should be changed), and they were trying to help the class pull of that concept better with their suggestions... even though that isn't the design direction of the class. Likewise, there seems to be a desire for a personal-combat-centric Wildshape focused class without a Pet as major focus... Perhaps that could be an Alt-Class that ends up using the same customized Spell List as Hunter/Beastmaster, ripping out the "major" Pet-centric features while retaining 2ndary features like tracking. That could even provide the basis for Errata to Synthesist which return it to the Pathfinder Polymorph paradigm and let's it return to PFS.
I also had that concern originally, but really the issue is whether the class as a whole is strong enough/works well enough, not the PC's personal power. Diverting the focus to bring the PC up to par PERSONALLY is just running again the over-all Pet centric design, which should be closer to Summoner (without the Summon SLAs, etc).
Even for the personal-combat-focused Inquisitor AS WELL AS the Summoner, Spontaneous Casting really does seem to work out rather well, allowing spamming some buffs while also allowing some room for utility/etc. At this point with Feats, Favored Class, Rings/Pages of Spell Knowledge, and other means, Spells Known aren't quite such a hard limitation, and 3/4 or 1/2 casters in fact can leverage that quite well since their Spell Levels don't go up all the way so the price of Spells Known items like Rings/Pages is reasonable.
If there is desire for a broader spellcasting capability, I think that could probably work well with an Archetype, adding in Druid Domain Spells somehow, along with more synegy with the Casting Stat to counter a weakening of personal/Pet combat prowess.
Exactly. :)
Here is my two scents on why making the Animal Focus bonuses a different typing then Enhancement is a good idea.
I know that it has been said that the intention is for Animal Focus not to stack with the belts, but several other classes already get different bonuses. For example, the Barbarian gets Morale bonuses from his Rage. The Alchemist gets Alchemical bonuses from his Mutagen.
The big example here is the the Druid. This class gets utterly massive Size bonuses from Wild Shape. They can slap on a +6 Belt of Physical Whatever and then bulk up into an elemental for a total bonus of up to +14 in some cases. They can do all of this by level 12, and it lasts for hours at a time instead of a handful of minutes.
In short, considering that other classes and their parents/children already have this concept in play (Bloodrager and Barbarian with Rage, Investigator and Alchemist with Mutagen), the Hunter could stand to have something more to look forward to other than just an Enhancement bonus thats scales much slower and sports a much shorter duration than what one of their parent classes gets.
|
Precise Companion vs. Precise Shot is going to come up a lot. The fact is that it really doesn't help at all, because in the majority of situation more than your pet is going to be in melee and then its useless, so any archer Hunter is going to pick up Precise Shot while melee hunters either won't use it at all or if they do it will be limited because again someone else is in melee.
I would suggest that the ability really is trying to emphasize that the hunter and pet work better together than most pairs. I would suggest the following:
Tandem Fighting: The hunter and his animal companion are considered flanking if they are adjacent to each other and each is adjacent to the target. (This provides a benefit to the melee side). A hunter's animal companion doesn't provide a cover bonus to enemies the hunter targets. (This provides a benefit to the hunter even with precise shot, negates a similar penalty to precise companion and can be adjusted if too strong, i.e. an animal companion only grants partial cover (+2 ac) when between a hunter and his target)
Precise Shot is another thing that's gotten a ton of votes, so lets see a playtest with the popular-voted changes:
1. Spontaneous spellcasting.
2. Precise Shot feat.
3. Ranger spells added to list.
4. Some form of combat style for the hunter herself.
Ultimately, I just don't see Spontaneous as weakening the Casting too much, it should work as fine as for Inquisitor and Summoner.
I do think Casting should be a solid component, just as it is for Inquisitor/Summoner,
but that is best supported with a solid spell list, with unique spells and appropriate early entry.
De-emphaizing the Hunter' personal combat, I think the Combat Style and Precise Shot is less important per se.
In that context, just the Pet themself not counting as being in melee for purposes of Ranged penalties (for the Hunter or for all allies) seems fine,
although honestly just dropping that ability completely would be fine too, and keep the class more conceptually focused.
If the Hunter (or allies) want to personally focus on Ranged combat and expect to have other allies also in melee,
then they will probably want to pick up Precise Shot themself, but personal ranged combat doesn't need to be the focus of the class,
any more so than it is for the Summoner... Of course some Archetype that did that would be fine.
Again, I think the responces have been sort of schizo, some focusing on buffing the personal combat prowess of the Hunter, some focusing on the Pet, when it isn't necessary or desirable to go both directions... it's just necessary to be clear on what direction the design is going in. That can very well mean dropping combat boosting abilities like the 'Half Precise Shot" that don't fully align with the inherent focus of the Class, and just shore up the core concept (and any tangential concepts which aren't crucial for combat, but enhance the broad utility of the class). If personal combat isn't really the focus, any more than it is for Summoners, we don't need to have expectations of class abilities working to make the Beast Master a top tier archer... ALthough like the Summoner, they are free to choose to focus in that direction and take Feats like Precise Shot to support that.
De-emphaizing the Hunter' personal combat, I think the Combat Style and Precise Shot is less important per se.
In that context, Precise Shot could be adjusted so that the Pet doesn't count as in melee for ANY ally.
If the Hunter (or allies) want to focus on Ranged combat and expect to have other allies also in melee,
then they will probably want to pick up Precise Shot themself, but personal ranged combat doesn't need to be the focus of the class,
any more so than it is for the Summoner... Of course some Archetype that did that would be fine.
The reason it's such a popular request is two things:
1. Having half a feat is pointless and underpowered. Plus taking the feat (which most probably will) makes this redundant.
2. Every hunter should have some basic skill with a bow. It's the one weapon that is most associated with hunting, and it's a practical skill. :)
You also very much do want the hunter to have some personal combat ability, because we already have a summoner. You don't want too much class redundancy. Having a class that achieves a balance between a companion, personal combat, and more "aggressive" spellcasting, is something we don't yet have.
Hunter is dead. Long live Beastmaster.
You know...in some ways, the spontaneous casting could actually prove to be a boost to the hunter's overall effectiveness and power level. The ability to repeatedly crank out buffs and heals on herself or her companion would give both of them a lot more combat durability and potential.