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.
There is a thread for homebrew options to deal with this issue.
Homebrew Ranger options threadSome of these alternatives also include replacing Hunter's Bond with other abilities. Also, when I posted my own scheme, I didn't think it was complete. I have since looked at the various FE categories in the class write up, and it seems to cover all of them.
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.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 think this would be a great idea for a skirmishing combat style, independent from the issues with hunters bond.
He would gain Spring Attack at 2nd, Improved Vital Strike at 6th and Greater Vital Strike at 10th level.
I don't know why you guys keep saying it's +4 at 20th. When it is +5, cause the maximum bonus on favored enemy is +10 for the ranger at 20th level.
Not the issue though, Zurai still think this is good. You guys did realize that this is used agains ONE target and it must be one of his favored enemies (and lets say it is that narrow 5% u chose since the beggining) and it lasts almost nothing, and you loose your full attack, which would be better with that +10 of yours.
Now, compare it to that Animal companion of a 20th level Ranger. How does that sound?
I don't know why you guys keep saying it's +4 at 20th. When it is +5, cause the maximum bonus on favored enemy is +10 for the ranger at 20th level.
I missed that it was doubly separating the Favored Enemy increase. So it's +5
It makes sense to combine some of the other FE ones but the biggest offender is Humanoid.
I don't know why you guys keep saying it's +4 at 20th. When it is +5, cause the maximum bonus on favored enemy is +10 for the ranger at 20th level.I missed that it was doubly separating the Favored Enemy increase. So it's +5
It makes sense to combine some of the other FE ones but the biggest offender is Humanoid.
You still think all humanoids should be together eh? Well, that's just too Overpowered.
But we are driving away from your initial problem there, do you have any sugestions about that?
Humanoids togheter is not a valid option in my opinion. Not only it would be unbalanced, but also for the coherence: how can your skills in hunting drows may help you hunting gnomes in a forest (just to make an example)?
Talking about calculations, I'm not as good as Cartigan in math but I can say that this is valid only for his first favored enemy, and the ranger attacking 4 times with a +10 would usually be better than giving +5 to other party members (unless you have many melee characters in party). The thing start to be very VERY situational (many melees / marksman in group, everyone attacking your First favored enemy).
An alternative to the animal companion could be a solitary combat style, like the skirmish feat path suggested above (spring attack, vital strike etc). The ranger focuses on having a 'pet', or fight on his own.
Personally I also think that a movement bonus would be nothing too overpowered for a ranger.
Humanoids togheter is not a valid option in my opinion. Not only it would be unbalanced, but also for the coherence: how can your skills in hunting drows may help you hunting gnomes in a forest (just to make an example)?
I have two responses to that.
How can your skills hunting Drow help in hunting Wood Elves in the forest? That's legal under the current system.
How can your skills hunting basilisks help in hunting Griffons? That's legal under the current system.
But we are getting away from Hunter's Bond sucks.
I'm gonna go with Cartigan on this one: Even though +4 damage +4 to hit for the entire party sounds good, the duration is way too short to be of any real use. 2 rounds is pretty much the max you'll ever see and it takes a standard action to use, in which time the ranger could be doing his job of dishing out some serious pain. You should also take note that if he takes this feature he loses his animal companion which is a huge part of his arsenal.
And Frustaro makes a good point. Given a party make up of a Arcane Caster, a Divine caster, a Rogue, then two meatsticks.
If one is a Fighter and one is a Ranger, the Ranger gives up his full attack to boost the Rogue and Fighter's damage. Assuming both the Rogue and Fighter each increase damage by 20-25%, how much more could possibly be done by letting the Ranger get a full attack with a +10 to each attack on that same monster?
An alternative to the animal companion could be a solitary combat style, like the skirmish feat path suggested above (spring attack, vital strike etc).
I opened a new thread in the Homebrew section concerning the new Combat Style.
I think the Skirmish Combat Style has some merit independent from the discussion about "that other Hunter's Bond option"...
An alternative to the animal companion could be a solitary combat style, like the skirmish feat path suggested above (spring attack, vital strike etc).I opened a new thread in the Homebrew section concerning the new Combat Style.
I think the Skirmish Combat Style has some merit independent from the discussion about "that other Hunter's Bond option"...
I thought about Skirmish, but it doesn't really help melee Rangers.
I opened a new thread in the Homebrew section concerning the new Combat Style.
I think the Skirmish Combat Style has some merit independent from the discussion about "that other Hunter's Bond option"...
I agree, it deserves some merit independent from this discussion. You know what? Hunter's Bond is so situational that it could be a base ranger feature, maybe starting from 8°. It's nothing really powerful.
Honestly the structure of the hunter's bond buff is kinda strange. Instead of being a limited use ability the bard's inspire courage it's more of a limited duration infinite use mechanic.
I'd be tempted to change it to a structure similar to the bardic performance ability where the ranger can provide the bonus for 4+ Wisdom modifier rounds per day with 2 additional rounds per day per level after 4th. Make it be a standard action to start but a free to maintain the ability and have it speed up to move action at 10th and swift action at 15th.
That way it scales up in power and still satisfies the problems with low duration.
How can your skills hunting Drow help in hunting Wood Elves in the forest? That's legal under the current system.How can your skills hunting basilisks help in hunting Griffons? That's legal under the current system.
That's true, but here the balancing is working in the opposite way: since having as favored enemy just 'basilisk' would be quite a small bonus, the beast are gathered into two mayor branches: magical beast and animals.
But gather the humanoid in one branch would be not only not coherent but also unbalanced, and every ranger would have it as first favored enemy (you encounter humanoids from 1° to level XY).That said, make Hunter's Bond a class feature as the combat style feats and the spells ;D
This ability doesn't seem that bad actually. It's pretty good if you have high wisdom. I doubt I'd take take hunters bond for companions if I had Ranger with a low Wisdom but I would if I had a high wisdom. By 15th level where you get +4/+4 to your companion for move action I'd expect to have +5 wisdom bonus by then so it would be a move action and 5 rounds of bonus with my ranger full attacking along with everyone else. If I had +1 wisdom bonus I wouldn't even bother taking this ability the animal companion is superior.
How can your skills hunting Drow help in hunting Wood Elves in the forest? That's legal under the current system.How can your skills hunting basilisks help in hunting Griffons? That's legal under the current system.
That's true, but here the balancing is working in the opposite way: since having as favored enemy just 'basilisk' would be quite a small bonus, the beast are gathered into two mayor branches: magical beast and animals.
But gather the humanoid in one branch would be not only not coherent but also unbalanced, and every ranger would have it as first favored enemy (you encounter humanoids from 1° to level XY).
That said, make Hunter's Bond a class feature as the combat style feats and the spells ;D
Really? It would be not coherent based on what? Humanoid is a VERY small and narrow field. Look at the description of humanoid - two arms, two legs, no exceedingly special abilities. And overpowered how? Sure, everyone might have it, but so will people take the Humanoid type that is the most persistent in their campaign. What's the point of Favored Enemy if running into your FE is overpowering? FE Undead is extremely overpowering in a campaign where you are hunting the undead.
For replacement of Hunter's Bond, I was just thinking the Ranger should be able to buff one of his ability for some number of rounds per day. Similar to a spell replacement ability from Complete Warrior.
Math: Hunter's Bond vs Full attack. Assuming your two other party members are identical Fighters. They are going to be doing average of 40 dmg more, where a full attack from a Two-Weapon Fighting Ranger against the same monster will be doing the same amount of damage as each Fighter when the Fighter is benefiting from the Bond. So you could get an extra +40 damage or an extra +100 damage.
The reasons for the narrow groupings of Humanoid are pretty obvious from a game design perspective. The default assumption is that humanoids are a) the most common creatures in the game and b) the ones that the majority of PCs will interact with across all 20 levels.
Example: The ranger with FE:Humanoid(Human)gets a ton of utility out of that at 1st level (it's useful vs brigands trying to sneak up on the party) but is also useful out-of-combat when the ranger is trying to determine if a NPC is lying to him or he needs to bluff his way past the palace guards. Interesting enough it's also useful at 20th level for both in combat and out of combat reasons (Many campaigns feature human wizards as BBEG for instance).
In contrast FE:Animal is great for low level NPCs but loses utility about 5th level. FE: Magical Beast is good up until 12th or so but rapidly loses utility after that. Further in the course of an most campaigns the FE:Magical Beast ability might come up 1-2 encounters per level unless the DM specifically designs the campaign to suit the magical beast hunter.
So while a Basilisk is significantly different from a Cockatrice in many ways the game was specifically designed with the assumption that the standard campaign will probably not feature a ton of basilisks or cockatrice but the PCs will interact with humans a good percentage of the time.
You can even justify it with the logic that FE:Humanoid specialization reflect the complexity of learning body language and cultural norms for a huge number of cultures. Granted that logic will break down when you consider outsiders (tons of cultures and body languages possible) but FE:Outsider is generally a late game ability and thus ultra-specialization isn't called for.
The reasons for the narrow groupings of Humanoid are pretty obvious from a game design perspective.
That wasn't what I meant. I meant variations between subtypes are basically nill. The Humanoid type is the most narrow type in the game.
The default assumption is that humanoids are a) the most common creatures in the game and b) the ones that the majority of PCs will interact with across all 20 levels.
Example: The ranger with FE:Humanoid(Human)gets a ton of utility out of that at 1st level (it's useful vs brigands trying to sneak up on the party) but is also useful out-of-combat when the ranger is trying to determine if a NPC is lying to him or he needs to bluff his way past the palace guards. Interesting enough it's also useful at 20th level for both in combat and out of combat reasons (Many campaigns feature human wizards as BBEG for instance).
That's a fairly bad excuse for limiting the usefulness of Favored Enemy.
How is the Ranger's animal companion not "full"? You get all the abilities and half the choices in an animal companion you do with Druids. Sure, you get them three levels later then you would as a druid, but saying that makes a animal companion a waste is like arguing the Ranger or Paladin abilities to cast spells are a waste because a 4th level ranger or paladin can't compare with a 4th level Druid or Cleric.
Let's skip for a moment the fact I would argue they are...
In a recent trip into a bugbear infested trip my hawk animal companion (I just leveled to 4th) was much more useful then the 3rd level wizard or 3rd level barbarian.
Then your Barbarian needs new dice.
I take it that means you think a ranger's or paladin's ability to cast spells is a waste? If so, I'm also assuming you only play the basic basic classes of Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, or Rogue which are the best at one specific thing (killing in combat, arcane magic, divine magic, opening locks and other thieving stuff).Let's skip for a moment the fact I would argue they are...
Let's also ignore that your entire rebuttal is a non-sequitor.
Now, the Paladin's list does contain beneficial spells, and is powered by a stat that the Paladin uses for something other than casting a ridiculously select amount of spells.
The Ranger's spell list is based off of an ability that is used basically ONLY for casting spells and has a spell list that is not very beneficial to either himself or his companions. And is easily overshadowed in spell-casting, therefore, by both the Cleric and Druid.
Ranger spells a waste? Yes.
The Ranger's spells are tied to wisdom which is used by a large number of their key skills (perception, survival, heal if you want to do the Aragorn routine). Many of the ranger's abilities are tied to survival so a high wisdom that boosts survival is pretty nice.
Yes the ranger spell list is fairly mediocre, most are buffs that help out the ranger and his animal companion (if he has one). In most cases the other party buffers will reduce the need for a ranger to self buff but the ranger can operate solo for brief periods of time without being a total gimp.
And of course a good wisdom score is really nice for improving that very critical will save.
The Paladin gets better synergies between his primary stat and his abilities and his spell list is arguably better than the ranger's in many ways. However this comes at the cost of being pretty much gimped by low skill points in OOC situations.
Both rangers and paladins face significant issues with MAD. Ranger benefits from having high stats on his 2 of his 3 physical abilities (dex + con for archers, strength/dex + con for TWF) + a good wisdom. Paladin can get by with a low dexterity (at the cost of a crappy reflex save) but still needs a good strength, charisma, constitution and a decent wisdom to be truly effective.
Both rangers and paladins face significant issues with MAD. Ranger benefits from having high stats on his 2 of his 3 physical abilities (dex + con for archers, strength/dex + con for TWF) + a good wisdom. Paladin can get by with a low dexterity (at the cost of a crappy reflex save) but still needs a good strength, charisma, constitution and a decent wisdom to be truly effective.
Let's not forget the ranger is fine with a low Int, whereas the Paladin is not.
The Ranger's spells are tied to wisdom which is used by a large number of their key skills (perception, survival, heal if you want to do the Aragorn routine).
Those are also class skills. The most Wisdom you need is 14 which nets you a grand total of +2 to those skills. Real helpful.
Many of the ranger's abilities are tied to survival so a high wisdom that boosts survival is pretty nice.
I can guarantee putting ranks into it is far better than relying on your +2 bonus to it.
However this comes at the cost of being pretty much gimped by low skill points in OOC situations.
The only thing a Paladin would need to do out of battle (which I assume is what OOC means here because out of character makes no sense) is Charisma based. Ie, his major secondary stat.
Rangers do not need a good Wisdom unless they want to REALLY use their 4th level spells. Or you know, could just let a Druid/Cleric to cast the same spells on them since they are going to have a half dozen of them a day by the same level.
The Ranger's spells are tied to wisdom which is used by a large number of their key skills (perception, survival, heal if you want to do the Aragorn routine).Those are also class skills. The most Wisdom you need is 14 which nets you a grand total of +2 to those skills. Real helpful.
Many of the ranger's abilities are tied to survival so a high wisdom that boosts survival is pretty nice.I can guarantee putting ranks into it is far better than relying on your +2 bonus to it.
However this comes at the cost of being pretty much gimped by low skill points in OOC situations.The only thing a Paladin would need to do out of battle (which I assume is what OOC means here because out of character makes no sense) is Charisma based. Ie, his major secondary stat.
Rangers do not need a good Wisdom unless they want to REALLY use their 4th level spells. Or you know, could just let a Druid/Cleric to cast the same spells on them since they are going to have a half dozen of them a day by the same level.
Ok mate, it comes down to one simple thing. You are saying Rangers are lousy now, which is, to say the least, ridiculous.
Good BAB+d10, 2 good Saves, 6 skill points. The combat style feats alone are AWESOME, even better if u are an archer (but that's always better, and I don't like it).
Animal companion is VERY good (the alternative sucks as we all know)
Spells? not the best feature, but they are indeed usefull in many, MANY ways.
Favored enemy is very good now, and if it's not always used it's because it's not suposed to be. If it's NEVER used, your DM hates you, and you should leave the game or smack him a little bit.
Favored Terrain is the "weakest" feature he has and still is one of the very few things that add to Initiative, so it's awesome from time to time.
Now, if you play your ranger right, and your DM is not a jerk, you should be running against your FEs quite a lot, if not, well, it's still a pretty awesome class. I see no reason to improve it as a whole, just the Hunter's bond alternative which sucks.
Xum. He's partly right. Rangers are cool in their way, but they really are weak by comparison.
For what it's worth, I combined favored enemies down to about 12 choices (with humanoid split two ways), and all the favored enemies have the full bonus. So at level 20 the ranger would have +10/+10 vs 5 out of 12 groups, instead of +10/+10 vs 1 group out of... what 30?
Comparison with what mate?
I do undestand the problem with Favored Enemies, but I think they have pretty neat abilities elsewhere.
They are good at hitting anything, and I mean, REALLY good, they lose only to the fighters, cause they are the only WARRIOR class that has extra combat feats aside from the Fighter. Aside from that they have better saves than the fighter, a pretty good animal companion, spells that come in handy many, many times and the favoreds, that will help out a lot of times.
The thing is, they are awesome trackers, awesome survivors AND they are usefull in any combat, I don't see how this is a bad class at all.
Ok mate, it comes down to one simple thing. You are saying Rangers are lousy now, which is, to say the least, ridiculous.
No, I am saying Hunter's Bond is gimped, and coincidentally (as it is completely off-topic) Favored Enemy is unnecessarily specific where it needn't be and the Ranger's spell casting abilities do not contribute enough to the class in comparison to what it costs the class to even cast all its spells.
YOU are the one saying Ranger's are lousy.
Xum. He's partly right. Rangers are cool in their way, but they really are weak by comparison.
For what it's worth, I combined favored enemies down to about 12 choices (with humanoid split two ways), and all the favored enemies have the full bonus. So at level 20 the ranger would have +10/+10 vs 5 out of 12 groups, instead of +10/+10 vs 1 group out of... what 30?
Hrmm, are we talking comparing the ranger vs other linear progression classes or are we talking about comparing it to the quadratic types? Yes the ranger is going to lag behind the full progression casters (spontaneous casters are admittedly less of a problem) but all of the linear classes lag behind.
In the middle tier classes the ranger is actually pretty decent, he has decent damage producing capabilities especially against favored enemies, he's got a good selection of utility abilities, he's got an animal companion most likely (giving him another set of actions), an impressive selection of skills and the skillpoints to power them, and a decent if not stellar selection of utility spells.
The fighter is clearly superior in direct damage but it worthless when combat isn't happening, the paladin can be situationally awesome and yes can be a decent face given that diplomacy is charisma linked, the barbarian is underwhelming at least until they boost up the Two-handed weapon style. I think most people would say the monk is still relatively mediocre.
Against the skill monkeys the ranger is still pretty useful, the rogue has good direct damage capacity, lots of skills and some cool tricks but a lot of that ability depends on a combination of flanking and/or feint + flatfooted. The Bard is pretty decent with some good spells coming into play mid game but for the most part is a mediocre frontline combatant.
So basically the ranger sucks vs high level wizards and clerics. This is my surprised face :| I'm in favor of boosting the ranger but only if it narrows the gap between the linears and quads. Giving treats to the ranger without giving similar abilities to the other linears only unbalances the linears without fixing the problem with the tiers.
I never said they aren't useful my friend, Rangers are useful and fun. But they do tend to be weaker than Fighters and Paladins. I'm sure you'll say the skills make up for it, and they help somewhat, but they don't make up for the fact that favored enemy requires either A: An intentionally generous DM, or B: that your blowing him in order to regularly face your ONE!!! good favored enemy out of a massive list.
Ok buddy. I understand what you said now. But I don't see how they are "weaker" than the Paladin and the Fighter. In combat? Perhaps, and that's a big IF, specially comparing to the Paladin.
But this brings up a completely different issue here. If you assessment is true... what does it say about the Barbarian? (Why do they hate my Barbarians!?!?!)
Power-wise I think the Ranger is a middle of the road martial class when it comes to combat. Out of combat they simply have more options than most of the martial classes (Rogue is at a similar level in this regard)
Power-wise I think the Ranger is a middle of the road martial class when it comes to combat. Out of combat they simply have more options than most of the martial classes (Rogue is at a similar level in this regard)
Which really fails to address any of my issues about its in combat weaknesses.
Power-wise I think the Ranger is a middle of the road martial class when it comes to combat. Out of combat they simply have more options than most of the martial classes (Rogue is at a similar level in this regard)Which really fails to address any of my issues about its in combat weaknesses.
Which combat weakness is that again?
I never said they aren't useful my friend, Rangers are useful and fun. But they do tend to be weaker than Fighters and Paladins. I'm sure you'll say the skills make up for it, and they help somewhat, but they don't make up for the fact that favored enemy requires either A: An intentionally generous DM, or B: that your blowing him in order to regularly face your ONE!!! good favored enemy out of a massive list.
Why wouldn't a DM have a rangers favored enemy in the game? Rangers have a favored enemies because that's what they go after. If DM is railroading the ranger into dungeons that don't feature that enemy then the DM is screwing with or using published adventure and not giving any hints at what type of monster is common. Both are bad things to do in my book.
This would be the same with a DM makings sure everything a Paladin fights is neutral. Or having all encounters where a fighter's melee power is useless and only magic can defeat the encounter. That's going out of your way to screw over a player playing a particular class.
Which really fails to address any of my issues about its in combat weaknesses.
The non-existent in combat weakness?
Yeah, I'm just not seeing the DM screwing over the ranger on Favored Enemy. If you are playing an adventure path it's relatively easy to guess what types of foes will be featured. Council of Thieves is an urban themed adventure path in Cheliax, so I'm likely to start out with favored enemy: human (Cheliaxians seem to be racist dillholes) and favored environment: Urban, later on I'll get outsider:evil (this seems like a selection even a braindead player can make). Undead are probably going to show up on occasion so I'll get that as well.
If I am doing homebrew I'm going to ask what creatures are common in the local campaign area and I expect the DM to be honest. A borderland threatened by constant Goblinoid incursions? FE: Humanoid(Goblinoid) and likely FE:Humanoid(Giant) to deal with the inevitable ogres and trolls. You know I might even decide to make a Dwarf Ranger to get good synergies between racial abilities and Favored Enemy bonuses.
If it's going to be an underdark themed game I'll probably pick up FE: Elf, FE: Dwarf and FE:Aberration.
Now if the Player chooses Enemies that don't fit with the campaign guideline like a FE:Fae in an urban themed campaign I'm not hugely sympathetic. If the DM starts the campaign in one locale and then suddenly changes the theme of the campaign to another location entirely (say we start in an urban themed game and suddenly we are going to be hanging out on the plane of elemental earth for several levels)I'd probably pitch a fit. As a DM I'd probably allow the ranger to retrain even ;)
The non-existent in combat weakness?
Which really fails to address any of my issues about its in combat weaknesses.
The weaknesses of the listed features, of which at least one was the TOPIC OF THE THREAD. If you are going to be obtuse and off-topic, perhaps you would enjoy another thread better?
The weaknesses of the listed features, of which at least one was the TOPIC OF THE THREAD. If you are going to be obtuse and off-topic, perhaps you would enjoy another thread better?
Screaming doesn't prove a point. You've done absolutely nothing to prove that Rangers are weak in combat and need a combat buff. Please back up your claim with actual data.
Screaming doesn't prove a point. You've done absolutely nothing to prove that Rangers are weak in combat and need a combat buff. Please back up your claim with actual data.
The weaknesses of the listed features, of which at least one was the TOPIC OF THE THREAD. If you are going to be obtuse and off-topic, perhaps you would enjoy another thread better?
Thank you for being irrelevant to the conversation and having no idea what the topic is, good bye.
Screaming doesn't prove a point. You've done absolutely nothing to prove that Rangers are weak in combat and need a combat buff. Please back up your claim with actual data.
The weaknesses of the listed features, of which at least one was the TOPIC OF THE THREAD. If you are going to be obtuse and off-topic, perhaps you would enjoy another thread better?
Now now, I don't think he's trying to prove that Ranger's are weak in combat but rather that the non-pet option of Hunter's Bond is a weak option. If you want to give the Ranger the option of not choosing an animal companion there should be a worthwhile alternative, otherwise he shouldn't get the choice at all. The animal companion is a very big part of the ranger class while the other ability is extremely weak in comparison.
To summarize the points made so far:
The alternative to the animal companion:
- Is very situational
- Takes too long to activate and lasts for a very short time
- Does not grant that big a benefit to a well balanced party
Thank you for being irrelevant to the conversation and having no idea what the topic is, good bye.
Good bye? Are you going somewhere? Such a shame.
The alternative to the animal companion:
- Is very situational
- Takes too long to activate and lasts for a very short time
- Does not grant that big a benefit to a well balanced party
- It's intended to be situational. The Ranger is a very situational class. Want a class that functions equally well no matter the situation? Play a Fighter.
- Lasts for a very short time? Rangers have nothing else to put in their Headband slot (which is different from the Head slot, so doesn't interfere with helmets and the like) except for a headband of wisdom +X. The duration should be 2-5 rounds (14 Wis minimum to cast all Ranger spells, +6 potential from a headband of wisdom).- Increasing damage by 26% isn't a big benefit?
Screaming doesn't prove a point. You've done absolutely nothing to prove that Rangers are weak in combat and need a combat buff. Please back up your claim with actual data.
The weaknesses of the listed features, of which at least one was the TOPIC OF THE THREAD. If you are going to be obtuse and off-topic, perhaps you would enjoy another thread better?Now now, I don't think he's trying to prove that Ranger's are weak in combat but rather that the non-pet option of Hunter's Bond is a weak option. If you want to give the Ranger the option of not choosing an animal companion there should be a worthwhile alternative, otherwise he shouldn't get the choice at all. The animal companion is a very big part of the ranger class while the other ability is extremely weak in comparison.
To summarize the points made so far:
The alternative to the animal companion:
- Is very situational
- Takes too long to activate and lasts for a very short time
- Does not grant that big a benefit to a well balanced party
Your last point is incorrect. It should be
"-is less beneficial to a well balanced party than having a Ranger use his full attack"
It should be
"-is less beneficial to a well balanced party than having a Ranger use his full attack"
Define "well balanced party" to me, please, so that I can prove you wrong. By which I mean, "give me a sample party that you consider well-balanced".
Define "well balanced party" to me, please, so that I can prove you wrong. By which I mean, "give me a sample party that you consider well-balanced".It should be
"-is less beneficial to a well balanced party than having a Ranger use his full attack"
I believe we played this game already.
I made the argument that even with two identical Fighters on the team, each with an increase of 26%, you are still getting at max +50 damage, wheres a full attack from a two-weapon Ranger against the same enemy would add an additional amount of damage equal to the damage output of one of those Fighters WITH the Ranger's bonus.So let's see.
Two fighters + Ranger using Hunter's Bond = ~275 dmg
Two fighters + Ranger using Full Attack action = ~330 dmg
I think the latter is an increase of 17% damage output over the former.
wheres a full attack from a two-weapon Ranger against the same enemy would add an additional amount of damage equal to the damage output of one of those Fighters WITH the Ranger's bonus.
The trap here is that you are NOT competing with one round of Fighter damage against a Ranger full attack.
The Ranger uses a move action to activate his Hunter's Bond, meaning he can still take a standard action to attack. Also, if he's a TWF Ranger, he's not going to get a full attack in the first round of combat anyway, so he uses a move action to activate HB and a standard action as a move action to get into attack range, only losing a single attack instead of a full attack.
Furthermore, his Hunter's Bond bonus lasts a bare minimum of two rounds. That means he gets ~+100 expected damage from the two Fighters. If the combat is a long-lasting one, and the player isn't stupid and invests in a headband of wisdom, he could get up to +250 expected damage (or more, although I wouldn't take a Ranger past 20 Wisdom) just from those two Fighters, all for the cost of sacrificing less than a full attack from himself.
That's a net gain.
EDIT: By the way, a balanced party will benefit more from Hunter's Bond than two Fighters will. Fighters are a bad case example (not worst, but bad), which is why I chose them specifically. As I noted above, a Rogue is going to get a much larger benefit, as will a monk, melee cleric, etc.