This being about Hunter's Bond. Hunter's Bond provides two choice that are as bad as all the Ranger replacement abilities in 3.5 Sure, they improved the animal companion, but if you don't want one you get a horrible ability to give your buddies an extra +1 to +3 atk and dmg Wis times a day?
Why is the Hunter's Bond significantly weaker than the Paladin or Wizard's choice? Ranger needs a new optional ability that improves the Ranger just like the weapon bond or intelligent weapon does for the Paladin and Wizard, respectively. The team bond does not help the Ranger and only minimally benefits the team.
Is there some plan in future books to help the Ranger out?
I for one hope the APG gives us new options for ranger. New weapon paths and alternatives to spells
This has already been talked about ... a lengthy thread exists somewhere here on the forums ...
A short short version is:
- Pathfinder upgraded the ranger a bit from 3.5
- A Ranger is not a druid
- A Ranger also gets spells
- A Ranger doesn't really need a tough animal companion
Nobody agreed with each other ... and some flaming ensued :P
If you use the search, I'm sure it will turn up ...
-TDL
The aid companions version of Hunter's Bond, can be used an unlimited number of times per day. It just takes a move action each time you use it, and only lasts for a number rounds = to Wis mod, each time.
This is still clunky, and means that a Ranger can't make a full attack on any round that he chooses to aid his companions, but it is not quite as bad as the OP made it out to be.
This has already been talked about ... a lengthy thread exists somewhere here on the forums ...
A short short version is:
- Pathfinder upgraded the ranger a bit from 3.5
- A Ranger is not a druid
- A Ranger also gets spells
- A Ranger doesn't really need a tough animal companionNobody agreed with each other ... and some flaming ensued :P
If you use the search, I'm sure it will turn up ...
-TDL
Except none of that has to do with what I am talking about.
I want an alternative to the animal companion that makes a worthwhile alternative compared to the half-assed one they provided.Never mind the fact that the Druid is more powerful than the Ranger above level 4.
This is still clunky, and means that a Ranger can't make a full attack on any round that he chooses to aid his companions, but it is not quite as bad as the OP made it out to be.
Actually it is. At best, you are giving your companions a +4 bonus to atk and damage. At 20th level. And that is ignoring the fact that it provides no benefit for the Ranger. All other class feature alternatives for other classes provide at the least an equally beneficial ability for the player himself. Hunter's Bond for the team is NOT useful for the Ranger and is only mildly useful for the rest of the team.
I have to agree that the Hunter's bond "option" is really a non-option since one option is pretty good, the other isn't.
Hopefully you like animal companions.
I have to agree that the Hunter's bond "option" is really a non-option since one option is pretty good, the other isn't.
Hopefully you like animal companions.
Even the Druid's Nature Bond is far better than Hunter's Bond.
So I get a full animal companion or the ability to access a Cleric nature related domain? Win-win.Hunter's Bond = Lose-lose
I don't agree...I think the Hunter's Bond (Aid Companions) is a great ability. Since when was D&D a solo-adventure where being able to do something that few other classes can do (aid others) is not cool?
Other than that, I'm open to new alternatives, but why doesn't the OP come with suggestions for what he'd like?
I don't agree...I think the Hunter's Bond (Aid Companions) is a great ability. Since when was D&D a solo-adventure where being able to do something that few other classes can do (aid others) is not cool?
OK, let's get right on changing Nature Bond, Arcane Bond, and Divine Bond to bring them in line with the Ranger's Hunter's Bond. Or, you know, we can do it the OTHER WAY. Even if we IGNORE the fact that no other class works like the Ranger does, the Ranger's companion bond is HORRIBLE. You get a negligible bonus against specific creatures within 30' for Wisdom rounds. Terrible.
Other than that, I'm open to new alternatives, but why doesn't the OP come with suggestions for what he'd like?
Because I'm not sure what fits thematically that doesn't already exist.
An alternative to favorite enemies/terrain would be great, which would in turn grant you an alternative to the non-option ability. I can't stand favorite enemies or abilities like that, they're just too situational for me to handle.
|
Well, yeah.
Hunter's Bond is not as good as the abilities you mentioned.
Guess what? IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE.
What you are asking for is completely ridiculous.
If every ability of every class was 100% perfectly balanced against the matching ability that every other class had, there'd be no point in having any of those abilities. It's a ridiculous and absurd request.
What matters is, are the classes as a whole balanced against each other, and the answer to that question is "yes, from levels 3ish to 15ish, with a couple bumps along the way".
Rangers are very good at what they do. They excel at being archers and at two-weapon fighting, which is what they are supposed to do. They get utility abilities, handy spells, favored enemy boosts, and a nice skill selection.
In exchange for this, they have an ability that is similar to but not as good as a Druid's Nature Bond.
That said, the ability quite frankly isn't all that significant, so you are free to change it if you want to.
Also, comparing a Fifth level Wild-Shape Melee Druid to a 5th level anything else is pointless; they are actually better at fighting than the Fighter from 5th to 7th level. It's a problem with the Druid, not a problem with anything else.
Well, yeah.
Hunter's Bond is not as good as the abilities you mentioned.
Guess what? IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE.
What you are asking for is completely ridiculous.
If every ability of every class was 100% perfectly balanced against the matching ability that every other class had, there'd be no point in having any of those abilities. It's a ridiculous and absurd request.
On what asinine scale? Why should the Ranger be gimped in its choices when THREE OTHER CLASSES are not?
Rangers are very good at what they do. They excel at being archers and at two-weapon fighting, which is what they are supposed to do. They get utility abilities, handy spells, favored enemy boosts, and a nice skill selection.
This has NOTHING to do with what I am talking about.
In exchange for this, they have an ability that is similar to but not as good as a Druid's Nature Bond.
Ranger = shoot things with arrows/cut things with two swords and get 4th level spells
Druid = get 9th level spells, get a full progression animal companion, TURN INTO ELEMENTALSYeah, I see how the Ranger is WAY more powerful than the Druid and deserves to be gimped. Do you people really think before you write this crap?
Well, yeah.
Hunter's Bond is not as good as the abilities you mentioned.
Guess what? IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE.
What you are asking for is completely ridiculous.
If every ability of every class was 100% perfectly balanced against the matching ability that every other class had, there'd be no point in having any of those abilities. It's a ridiculous and absurd request.
What matters is, are the classes as a whole balanced against each other, and the answer to that question is "yes, from levels 3ish to 15ish, with a couple bumps along the way".
Rangers are very good at what they do. They excel at being archers and at two-weapon fighting, which is what they are supposed to do. They get utility abilities, handy spells, favored enemy boosts, and a nice skill selection.
In exchange for this, they have an ability that is similar to but not as good as a Druid's Nature Bond.
That said, the ability quite frankly isn't all that significant, so you are free to change it if you want to.
Also, comparing a Fifth level Wild-Shape Melee Druid to a 5th level anything else is pointless; they are actually better at fighting than the Fighter from 5th to 7th level. It's a problem with the Druid, not a problem with anything else.
I think you're missing the point of the thread. We're not saying that the animal companion of the ranger is weak (in fact, it's really powerful), we're saying that the alternative (granting your party favored enemy bonuses) is almost completely useless and noone in their right minds would ever take it instead.
And since you mentioned druids, I think they're a fair comparison. They get to choose between an animal companion and a domain. In most cases, the animal companion is the superior choice by far. However, there are certain niches where the domain slot/powers will come in handy. To get an option like that for the ranger would be super-swell, and that's all we're asking for. A viable alternative.
So just so I am clear, I believe what we are talking about is not that the Hunters bond ability is weak vs Arcane bond or natures bond. But that the difference in utilty/power between the 2 sides of hunters bond is much greater then the the difference between the 2 sides of the other bonds. So if Natures bond on a power scale animal companion to cleric domain is like 10-7, Hunters bond animal companion to Ability to give allies a boost is 5-1. Is that correct?
Well i think the buff version of hunters bond is only useful is you have several party members that also attack. Since one of the combat characters in the party is certainly going to be the ranger, unless you have a party of a ranger, fighter, battle cleric, and Fighter/Mage, that ability is pretty much not going to be useful in a 4 person party. In a larger party ofcourse it gets much better.
So the question is, what do you replace it with? What fits thematically and mechanically? Do you think just improving the bond to the party is good enough? Increasing the bonus? Changing it to a swift action? I am not certain what could be added in its place effectively.
I'd personally like something simple like a flat movement speed bonus or whatever to help your ranger skirmish better. Could improve at higher levels.
Yes, a 10 ft bonus movement speed at lower levels and a 20 ft one at higher levels would come in handy indeed, especially for skirmishing and tracking with swift tracker.
I'd personally like something simple like a flat movement speed bonus or whatever to help your ranger skirmish better. Could improve at higher levels.
Yes, a 10 ft bonus movement speed at lower levels and a 20 ft one at higher levels would come in handy indeed, especially for skirmishing and tracking with swift tracker.
Only thing is rangers make very poor skirmishers. Both combat styles rely on full attacks. You would have to create a new combat style with things like vital strike (similar to a 3.5 scout) in order to justify a skirmishing bond ability.
Although a new combat style focusing on skirmishing would be great, I doubt it's going to happen. However, I think vital strike (even though it's costly in terms of feats) and feats like manyshot that use standard actions can work just fine with the improved movement speed. Also, the movement speed has other uses than just combat ones, such as moving through the wilderness at a faster pace and granting you bonuses to acrobatic skills and the like. If that's not enough you could give it some sort of Pounce as well (imagine Rambo jumping screaming down from the trees), but I think that might be a bit too powerful.
To me the improved movement speed would be a modest but viable alternative.
EDIT: On second thought, a Pounce ability wouldn't be too powerful at all, what with the two weapon style ranger being inferior as it is and losing the animal companion and all.
I could see the alternative looking something like this:
4th level: +10 ft movement speed
10th level: Pounce (full attack after charging)
14th level: +20 ft movement speed
Although a new combat style focusing on skirmishing would be great, I doubt it's going to happen. However, I think vital strike (even though it's costly in terms of feats) and feats like manyshot that use standard actions can work just fine with the improved movement speed. Also, the movement speed has other uses than just combat ones, such as moving through the wilderness at a faster pace and granting you bonuses to acrobatic skills and the like. If that's not enough you could give it some sort of Pounce as well (imagine Rambo jumping screaming down from the trees), but I think that might be a bit too powerful.
To me the improved movement speed would be a modest but viable alternative.
Remember manyshot requires a full attack in pathfinder. And even if you took feats for it, you are still working counter to the primary combat abilities of the class, which would make it less of an option then the existing alternative to me.
Remember manyshot requires a full attack in pathfinder.Although a new combat style focusing on skirmishing would be great, I doubt it's going to happen. However, I think vital strike (even though it's costly in terms of feats) and feats like manyshot that use standard actions can work just fine with the improved movement speed. Also, the movement speed has other uses than just combat ones, such as moving through the wilderness at a faster pace and granting you bonuses to acrobatic skills and the like. If that's not enough you could give it some sort of Pounce as well (imagine Rambo jumping screaming down from the trees), but I think that might be a bit too powerful.
To me the improved movement speed would be a modest but viable alternative.
You got me, I had completely forgotten about that. I edited the above post.
I took the Enhanced Companion alternate class feature from the PCCS and tweaked it for PRGP. If the ranger selects Companions for his Hunter's Bond, they gain full Favored Enemy bonus (rather than half) or if he selects an animal companion, it gains benefits based on full Ranger level (rather than Ranger level -3). The ranger sacrifices animal empathy for this (which makes sense, as he's not focused on animals in general any more).
|
|
Might I humbly suggest you take a look at the Spell-less Ranger in the current Issue of Kobold Quarterly?
Among other things, it gives the ranger an animal companion that equals the Druid in power (getting the animal companion at full druid level instead of druid level -3)
This variant also gives additional skirmish / sneak attack type abilities and inhances the usefullness of Favored Enemies and Favored Terrain.
They also gain increased movement at various levels.
This might be what you are looking for or at least, there might be some ideas you could use.
On what asinine scale? Why should the Ranger be gimped in its choices when THREE OTHER CLASSES are not?
If this is just about being gimped on choices, put the Wizard up there as well...who in their right mind would take a familiar (unless for RP reasons) when you can get an extra spell at your highest level, that you don't have to prepare ahead of time, plus virtual craft magic item feats for whatever you choose to bond with?
|
|
On what asinine scale? Why should the Ranger be gimped in its choices when THREE OTHER CLASSES are not?Well, yeah.
Hunter's Bond is not as good as the abilities you mentioned.
Guess what? IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE.
What you are asking for is completely ridiculous.
If every ability of every class was 100% perfectly balanced against the matching ability that every other class had, there'd be no point in having any of those abilities. It's a ridiculous and absurd request.
I like how you took all of my build-up and conveniently sniped off the actual conclusion of this train of thought:
What matters is, are the classes as a whole balanced against each other, and the answer to that question is "yes, from levels 3ish to 15ish, with a couple bumps along the way".
|
|
So just so I am clear, I believe what we are talking about is not that the Hunters bond ability is weak vs Arcane bond or natures bond. But that the difference in utilty/power between the 2 sides of hunters bond is much greater then the the difference between the 2 sides of the other bonds. So if Natures bond on a power scale animal companion to cleric domain is like 10-7, Hunters bond animal companion to Ability to give allies a boost is 5-1. Is that correct?
Well i think the buff version of hunters bond is only useful is you have several party members that also attack. Since one of the combat characters in the party is certainly going to be the ranger, unless you have a party of a ranger, fighter, battle cleric, and Fighter/Mage, that ability is pretty much not going to be useful in a 4 person party. In a larger party ofcourse it gets much better.
So the question is, what do you replace it with? What fits thematically and mechanically? Do you think just improving the bond to the party is good enough? Increasing the bonus? Changing it to a swift action? I am not certain what could be added in its place effectively.
Ah, I understand now. yeah, the non-pet ability is questionable.
Maybe if it was just "on all the time", like the regular favored enemy bonus?
Favored Enemy is great in both one-shots and adventure paths with mostly one or two kinds of enemies. Like Red Hand of Doom, which is mostly goblinoids, with some giants, or an "undead invasion" campaign, or "aberration invasion", or the like, then favored enemy is basically just always on.
On the other hand, it's terrible in random adventure chains. Like grabbing the "series" of modules that started with Sunless Citadel.
So the non-pet ability is not so useful, as you have to activate it, and it grants something that's based on another class ability which may or may not be useful.
I think the Nature's Bond problem is that it's too situational. Being able to give it up for even one feat would look good to a fair number of players, even though it could be really handy in certain games.
Maybe if it was just "on all the time", like the regular favored enemy bonus?
But how would you explain this? As a magical aura that just improves allies' abilities against certain creatures?
The reason it is as it is, is that the ranger gives guidance and tells his allies how to effectively fight x. At least that's how I see it.
Maybe if it was just "on all the time", like the regular favored enemy bonus?But how would you explain this? As a magical aura that just improves allies' abilities against certain creatures?
The reason it is as it is, is that the ranger gives guidance and tells his allies how to effectively fight x. At least that's how I see it.
Perhaps it would be a daily ability. It requires 15 minutes of conversation with your allies in the morning, lasts 24 hours. The ranger gives a morning pep talk about how to take down their favored enemy. The party remembers for the day, but after a good night's sleep they need a refresher.
Might I humbly suggest you take a look at the Spell-less Ranger in the current Issue of Kobold Quarterly?
Among other things, it gives the ranger an animal companion that equals the Druid in power (getting the animal companion at full druid level instead of druid level -3)
This variant also gives additional skirmish / sneak attack type abilities and inhances the usefullness of Favored Enemies and Favored Terrain.
They also gain increased movement at various levels.
This might be what you are looking for or at least, there might be some ideas you could use.
I have looked at this version. I happen to like it, and one of my players is using it for a ranger weilding firearms from a region that doesnt like or use magic (think alkenstar).
But the abilities you describe replace spells, natures bond in its current form is very much there, so I do not think it will help much.
I agree with some posters that not every class ability needs to be directly comparable with a similar class ability from another class even if they are given at roughly the same tier of play. In the case of Hunter's bond the ability definitely is weaker than the either nature bond or arcane bond as a wolf or cheetah is less of a boost for a 4th level ranger than it is for a 1st level druid. As such the non-animal option needs to be of lower utility than the druid option.
The question of course if how much lower in utility does it need to be. The core problem in the ally-booster is that it's highly dependent on situational modifiers. In a small party the boost is of limited utility as only a few characters will be making ranged and melee attacks during the boost period. In large parties with a number of cohorts, planar allies, and retainers this boost can be significantly more powerful as the ranger's allies can wolfpack even dangerous foes into the ground.
I think the problem is that the ability needs to scale a bit better or provide a combat boost and a movement boost (such as providing woodland stride or endurance to allies) for out of combat utility. That way it can simulate the ranger keeping his allies safe from harm in the form of horrible terrain.
My issue with it is that a Ranger with Wis 12 or less has to use a move action every round, in order to buff his friends. Even with a higher Wis score, there will still be many rounds in which you can't make a full attack, if you want to keep buffing them. I would be far happier with it if it lasted longer, like maybe twice as many rounds per use.
Favored Enemy is great in both one-shots and adventure paths with mostly one or two kinds of enemies. Like Red Hand of Doom, which is mostly goblinoids, with some giants, or an "undead invasion" campaign, or "aberration invasion", or the like, then favored enemy is basically just always on.
On the other hand, it's terrible in random adventure chains. Like grabbing the "series" of modules that started with Sunless Citadel.
If the feeling is that the FE bonus is too situational, then a 'floating' FE might be more use. Perhaps something like this (pinched the basic concept from Arcanis):
the Ranger makes a Knowledge (X) roll of DC Y + creature's HD, CR, BAB or some other scaling factor as a swift action. Success and they are considered to have their favoured enemy bonus against said creature(s). As this means success is not guaranteed (but they can try again each round a swift action) I might also consider a houserule that vs their favoured enemy they are actually considered to have the Bane (X) enhancement on their attacks once the Knowledge check is made - the +2 to hit is the same as they get anyway, but now they get a much better damage boost - and that translates into +1/+1D6 from Hunter's Bond.
It could scale the same way a Paladin's bond does; rather than going to +4 at 5th level, the Ranger can choose from a list of extra abilities - Keen, Merciful, Defending, Ghost Touch (surprised this isn't on the Paladin's list) being the obvious one, then at 11th the list expands to include Un/Holy, Disruption, Wounding maybe?
Can't recall the numbers in the DPR thread but I don't remember there being (m)any Ranger builds - is this overcompensating and making them too good?
Last year, using the Alpha rules for Pathfinder, I played a Halfling Ranger from level 1 to 8 using the slow progression of experience playing roughly once a week for a year (when the Core book was released).
I can tell you how I felt that I was very sub-par compared to the other characters and fighters in the group.
Partly this was due to a bad set of hit point rolls that left me having to change from my original plan to be good at charging and doing damage to a poor range marksperson.
My damage in most fights rarely exceeded a few d6 and most of the time failed to get to 10 points of damage even when I was trying to pull every trick that I could think of out of the book.
I had to resort to using wands to bring up my damage to something respectable for a fighter (using scorching ray wands was the major source of damage increase).
I encountered my 'favoured enemey' in the first adventure of the game playing which was in the first month of play. I never saw another Kobold for 11 months. I never fought a single Lizard-like humanoid.
Often my contribution to the party was my skills but even that was nothing more than several others could provide with almost as good skill.
I was happy to see the Inquisitor is a much superior form of ranger (choose the Animal Domain and you can get your Animal Companion).
Favoured Enemey has many problems in that it is dependant upon the GM providing monsters to make it useful. Inquisitor's Judgements is just a superior mechanism to providing a situational fighting bonus that a player will know is available to them. It also has some optional choices which is a nice touch (like fast heal or improved AC).
If a player does not want the Animal Companion of the Ranger then I would suggest there are some easy suggestions;
1>> Allow the player to choose a single domain and gain the powers from the domain. Animal Companion (ranger version) is really just part of the Animal Domain. This is a quick fix and gives a balanced gain in ability with the player able to choose something that usually at level 6 to 8 will turn into something that they can possibly wield for damage.
2>> Allow the player starting at level 4 to choose one Rogue talent every 3 levels. This allows the ranger to choose a variety of small things that can be useful and boost their abilities.
Anyways, something needs to be done with the Ranger but I felt that before when the case was stated the Ranger should stay reasonably the same because there was a lack of interest in changing it from the original Open Licence.
Alot of the proposals ignore my major point - that it is just a bad option. There is no way to improve the option because it is based around an already limited concept. And oh yeah, PROVIDES NO BENEFIT TO THE RANGER. Favored Enemy is already limited and barely helps the Ranger especially given the overly complex breakdown of Favoured Enemy (I can guarantee you that a basilisk and griffon arn't remotely familiar but there is ZERO appreciable difference between an Orc and a Human). Then it HALVES that and makes it based on Wis mod. The most Wis mod a Ranger needs, if he even cares about his limited spell list, is a +2 mod (14 Wis). And if he doesn't care, it will be maybe +1.
But, the time frame is not the real problem, it is that it doesn't benefit the ranger at all.
Another problem is any decent replacement for it would be far superior to the half-assed animal companion that the Ranger gets. I like the bonus damage against identified monsters. I had something like that stat'd out for a custom class I made once where you got bonus damage against an identified monster.
Like I said, I don't know a good replacement (which is probably why there wern't any in 3.5) but there needs to be one on par with what Druids, Wizards, and Paladins get.
I see your point, and how you were 'sup-par' compared to your companions. I think that you can see the ranger class from two points of view:
if you want to power play, I'm afraid the ranger will never match the power of a fighter or a barbarian: maybe in the first levels, the +2 dmg boost will eventually make the ranger a better dmg dealer against his favoured enemies (maybe, and just against them); but take a 10° fighter and a 10° ranger and see as the first one hits harder even the so long-time hated orcs. Not to mention the AC.
If you see it from a roleplay point of view, the ranger is a good class: it can do decent damage, survive, wear many armors and wield every weapon, and it has a quite wide set of skills.
Adventuring in dungeons, ruins, forests and cities, must be quite difficult for a plated warrior compared to a skilled ranger, no matters how he's good at wielding swords.
I think it's all about what kind of character you have in mind.
Take me for example, I don't find fascinating the idea of being a tin-man fighter, neither to be a brute and analphabet barbarian: ranger just suits me most.
That being said, let's look at this ranger 'party boost' to increase damage against favored enemies: if you see it form the 'power play' point of view, it's simply too crap, and an animal companion it's way better. But if you imagine a small comunity of elves in war with a tribe of orcs, and imagine their ranger leader leading them to battle, than it makes sense to me :-)
Even the Druid's Nature Bond is far better than Hunter's Bond.
So I get a full animal companion or the ability to access a Cleric nature related domain? Win-win.Hunter's Bond = Lose-lose
I agree that the Druid gets better options for his bond ability.
I would disagree that the Ranger's animal companion is not good though. Comparitively not as good as a Druids of course, but I still think it's a decent asset.
I have to agree that the alternative to the Ranger's companion should be better, and that the companion itself is better than it was in 3.5 and isn't a bad class feature.
Elaborating on what I said. I think all the idiotic divisions of FE need to be collapsed.
The ones that make sense to expand, arn't expanded because they don't have subcategories (Magical beast, undead, aberration), and it makes no sense to expand humanoid. All humanoids are HUMANOID. That's why they are Humanoid. If you know how to hurt a gnome, you know how to hurt a giant. The only thing that might be different enough is Reptilian, which at that point might as well be stuck in Dragons.
Elaborating on what I said. I think all the idiotic divisions of FE need to be collapsed.
The ones that make sense to expand, arn't expanded because they don't have subcategories (Magical beast, undead, aberration), and it makes no sense to expand humanoid. All humanoids are HUMANOID. That's why they are Humanoid. If you know how to hurt a gnome, you know how to hurt a giant. The only thing that might be different enough is Reptilian, which at that point might as well be stuck in Dragons.
I disagree with that. Humanoids are diferent, and fight diferent and think diferent. And lets be honest, from a balancing point of view it's too overpowered to get Humanoids, period. Every ranger would have them as favorate enemies.
As to the Hunter's bond, it's so crappy it hurts. I'm trying to come with a solution to that, but I'm having a hard time here.
Elaborating on what I said. I think all the idiotic divisions of FE need to be collapsed.
The ones that make sense to expand, arn't expanded because they don't have subcategories (Magical beast, undead, aberration), and it makes no sense to expand humanoid. All humanoids are HUMANOID. That's why they are Humanoid. If you know how to hurt a gnome, you know how to hurt a giant. The only thing that might be different enough is Reptilian, which at that point might as well be stuck in Dragons.
I disagree with that. Humanoids are diferent, and fight diferent and think diferent. And lets be honest, from a balancing point of view it's too overpowered to get Humanoids, period. Every ranger would have them as favorate enemies.
As to the Hunter's bond, it's so crappy it hurts. I'm trying to come with a solution to that, but I'm having a hard time here.
And a basilisk != unicorn != griffon != tarrasque
Monstrous Humanoids as wellIt makes no sense to split Humanoids. Everyone may pick Humanoids but so? All humanoids are the same anatomically. Sure, they all may think and fight different but so would a Wood Elf compared to a High Elf but they are bunched together.
Anyone who thinks +4 to hit and +4 to damage to a whole party is weak seriously needs to do some math.
Anyone who thinks +4 to hit and +4 to damage to a whole party is weak seriously needs to do some math.
Putting it that way, it's not. What level do you get +4/+4 again?
Zurai, you are a pretty smart fellow. Now you tell me that's a fair ability? Tha you need to spend a move action to give this bonus to your allies, who must be close, see and hear you. Against ONE guy. For like ... let's go crazy here, 3 rounds?
I rather they didn't put another option at all.
Anyone who thinks +4 to hit and +4 to damage to a whole party is weak seriously needs to do some math.
At level 20?
Anyone who thinks +4 to hit and +4 to damage to a whole party is weak seriously needs to do some math.At level 20?
15th actually.
That's not the issue. The point is, it's always better to just full attack. Unless u have a monstruous group of melee types all mashed together against a Dragon or something. Still, most people on their right minds will just full attack, unless they had to move to get there, then I would sacrifice one attack to do this, if there were like at least 4 melee alies there, wich is to say the least, VERY unlikely.
At level 20?
Absolutely. That's only a couple levels higher than when Fighters get their +4/+4. +4 to hit is a MASSIVE benefit. +4 to damage is just the gravy on top of the mountains of delicious mashed potatoes.
At level 20?Absolutely. That's only a couple levels higher than when Fighters get their +4/+4. +4 to hit is a MASSIVE benefit. +4 to damage is just the gravy on top of the mountains of delicious mashed potatoes.
Now u r just being cute.
At level 20?Absolutely. That's only a couple levels higher than when Fighters get their +4/+4. +4 to hit is a MASSIVE benefit. +4 to damage is just the gravy on top of the mountains of delicious mashed potatoes.
He has a +4 with one set of weapons, +3 with another, +2.. +1...
Oh yeah, this is against all monsters anywhere.Then there is his +5 weapon. And increased Strength. And +20 BAB
And it's 20th level. You get your last bonus at 20th level which is +8 for the Ranger and would be +4 for everyone else.
He has a +4 with one set of weapons, +3 with another, +2.. +1...
What's your point? It's got nothing to do with mine, whatever it is. +4 to hit is a massive mathematical advantage in Pathfinder.
What's your point? It's got nothing to do with mine, whatever it is. +4 to hit is a massive mathematical advantage in Pathfinder.
He has a +4 with one set of weapons, +3 with another, +2.. +1...
The point was it is balanced in relativity.
Perhaps you should evidence math that shows a conditional +4 atk and +4 dmg increase at 20th level is a significant statistical advantage.
Perhaps you should evidence math that shows a conditional +4 atk and +4 dmg increase at 20th level is a significant statistical advantage.
Level 20 Fighter with 30 strength, +5 greatsword, weapon training +4 with heavy blades, GWF/S greatsword. Attacking a generic CR 20 creature, meaning AC 36.
Fighter hits on +41/+36/+31/+26 for 2d6+26 damage. This averages out to (.95*33)+(.95*33)+(.75*33)+(.5*33) = 103.95 expected damage per round. Now if we add +4 to hit (not even adding the +4 to damage), we get (.95*33)+(.95*33)+(.95*33)+(.7*33) = 117.15 expected damage, an increase of 12.6%. Adding in the +4 to damage as well gives us 131.35 damage, a total increase of 26.3%.
And that's for the FIGHTER, who already hits 95% of the time on his first two iteratives. Try that with the rogue instead and watch his DPR soar. Or have the Fighter Power Attack.
Giving a bad-case increase of 26% is hardly a weak ability.
Perhaps you should evidence math that shows a conditional +4 atk and +4 dmg increase at 20th level is a significant statistical advantage.Level 20 Fighter with 30 strength, +5 greatsword, weapon training +4 with heavy blades, GWF/S greatsword. Attacking a generic CR 20 creature, meaning AC 36.
Fighter hits on +41/+36/+31/+26 for 2d6+26 damage. This averages out to (.95*33)+(.95*33)+(.75*33)+(.5*33) = 103.95 expected damage per round. Now if we add +4 to hit (not even adding the +4 to damage), we get (.95*33)+(.95*33)+(.95*33)+(.7*33) = 117.15 expected damage, an increase of 12.6%. Adding in the +4 to damage as well gives us 131.35 damage, a total increase of 26.3%.
And that's for the FIGHTER, who already hits 95% of the time on his first two iteratives. Try that with the rogue instead and watch his DPR soar. Or have the Fighter Power Attack.
Giving a bad-case increase of 26% is hardly a weak ability.
After remembering I can't do math, I still go around 20%