The trap here is that you are NOT competing with one round of Fighter damage against a Ranger full attack.
Ok, let's go ahead and fix the goal posts?
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.
Let's first start off by assuming a scenario where the Fighters are for some reason in melee already while the melee focused Ranger isn't.
Furthermore, his Hunter's Bond bonus lasts a bare minimum of two rounds.
No, it lasts a bare minimum of 1 round, a la the rules. If he wants to cast 4th level spells 3 times a day, it will be +2. But since you insist on being obtuse and winning, let's just say he started out with 14 Wisdom and got a +6 Headband of Wisdom. Great, he has it for 5 rounds a use. At this point, I will grant you a win because if we are going to be absurd, of course we can create an absurd condition.
Let's assume a monster with 36 AC and infinite HP (because no monster below a Tarrasque is going to stand up past a single round of full attack in our theoretical scenario).
first round:
240 dmg
Next 4 rounds:
360*4=1440
Next round:
275
Next 4 rounds:
1440
Add last 5 rounds and multiply by arbitrary number as it approaches infinity anyway, (275+1440)*5=8575
Do more math, we get 11,970 dmg for 6 rounds.
Let's use my scenario
First round:
240 damage
Next 4 round:
330*4 = 1320
Next round:
330
Next 4 rounds:
1320
Math = 11,460 damage for 6 rounds. Great, you win.
At this point, I will grant you a win because if we are going to be absurd, of course we can create an absurd condition.
Why is this absurd? You've taken an ability that depends on Wisdom in a class that gets great benefits from increasing Wisdom. Why is it absurd to then increase Wisdom? Because it doesn't help your argument?
Let's first start off by assuming a scenario where the Fighters are for some reason in melee already while the melee focused Ranger isn't.
You didn't say they were melee Fighters. Archer Fighters actually do more damage than melee Fighters, and since you were assuming Archer Ranger (from losing a full attack), I felt justified in assuming Archer Fighters.
Zurai, why don't you post an example of this through the levels? And compare it to the Animal companion? Cause that's what this is all about.
Besides, the main issue here is that it aplies to only ONE target, in which case it becomes almost useless, since that target will most likelly die from other guys attacks and the Ranger +8 or +10 bonus.
And, for the record, it's prtty hard to find such a target cause the good bonus only comes when it is against that ONE favored enemy u focused upon and he is a HP monster.
Why is this absurd? You've taken an ability that depends on Wisdom in a class that gets great benefits from increasing Wisdom. Why is it absurd to then increase Wisdom? Because it doesn't help your argument?
Paladin gets great benefits for increasing Charisma.
Ranger gets mediocre benefits for increasing Wisdom that only increase to great in theoretical yet practically impossible arguments.You didn't say they were melee Fighters. Archer Fighters actually do more damage than melee Fighters, and since you were assuming Archer Ranger (from losing a full attack), I felt justified in assuming Archer Fighters.
Is your damage output the same for Archer Fighters? I don't think so. I SAID let's fix the goal posts.
Zurai, why don't you post an example of this through the levels? And compare it to the Animal companion? Cause that's what this is all about.
Because that requires building five characters several times over and running them through multiple simulated combats with all kinds of varying conditions and Cartigan will just nitpick stupid s#~% and say it invalidates the entire test? Or, more likely given his MO, will just invent things and claim I wrote them and say that invalidates the whole test.
I already asked him for a sample party. He refused. If he's not willing to actually support his thesis, it carries no weight.
At this point, I will grant you a win because if we are going to be absurd, of course we can create an absurd condition.Why is this absurd? You've taken an ability that depends on Wisdom in a class that gets great benefits from increasing Wisdom. Why is it absurd to then increase Wisdom? Because it doesn't help your argument?
Let's first start off by assuming a scenario where the Fighters are for some reason in melee already while the melee focused Ranger isn't.You didn't say they were melee Fighters. Archer Fighters actually do more damage than melee Fighters, and since you were assuming Archer Ranger (from losing a full attack), I felt justified in assuming Archer Fighters.
What party has 3 archers? The whole scenario is baffling to me. Is this a raid group with 12 people in it? Chances are the ranger is either the fighter, or the skill monkey in a classic 4 man party. Which is the problem with the ability. Most of the time there will only be 1 party member benefiting directly from this version of natures bond. Unless your party is Ranger, Fighter, Wildshape Focused Druid (no longer a guarantee), and Eldtrich Knight, it just doesnt seem a good thought experiment in the first place to me.
I already asked him for a sample party. He refused. If he's not willing to actually support his thesis, it carries no weight.
Maybe you should read the first page where we ALREADY went through this once then you decided to declare a new game with apparently entirely different rules.
Since this is your game. Provide a balance party including expected damage output for each member w/ without Hunter's Bond.
What party has 3 archers? The whole scenario is baffling to me. Is this a raid group with 12 people in it? Chances are the ranger is either the fighter, or the skill monkey in a classic 4 man party. Which is the problem with the ability. Most of the time there will only be 1 party member benefiting directly from this version of natures bond. Unless your party is Ranger, Fighter, Wildshape Focused Druid (no longer a guarantee), and Eldtrich Knight, it just doesnt seem a good thought experiment in the first place to me.
This is why I asked Cartigan for a sample party. Take issue with HIM that the sample party has a Ranger and two Fighters in it, not me.
This is why I asked Cartigan for a sample party. Take issue with HIM that the sample party has a Ranger and two Fighters in it, not me.
Let's everyone please ignore that I am using Zurai's sample Fighter in my calculations which was stat'd out as a 2-Hand Weaponer.
What party has 3 archers? The whole scenario is baffling to me. Is this a raid group with 12 people in it? Chances are the ranger is either the fighter, or the skill monkey in a classic 4 man party. Which is the problem with the ability. Most of the time there will only be 1 party member benefiting directly from this version of natures bond. Unless your party is Ranger, Fighter, Wildshape Focused Druid (no longer a guarantee), and Eldtrich Knight, it just doesnt seem a good thought experiment in the first place to me.This is why I asked Cartigan for a sample party. Take issue with HIM that the sample party has a Ranger and two Fighters in it, not me.
Ok so lets make a party then shall we?
2handed Fighter
Archer Ranger
Debuff/Buff Cleric (IE focuses on his spells)
Conjurationist wizard
That work for everyone?
Maybe you should read the first page where we ALREADY went through this once then you decided to declare a new game with apparently entirely different rules.
This is a bald-faced lie. The first page of this thread has nothing to do with parties, and my only contribution to it came at the very end when I said that +4 hit/+4 damage was a massive damage boost, which i then proved in page 2.
Stop lying to people, stop misquoting people, stop putting words in peoples' mouths, and stop intentionally twisting peoples' words to mean the opposite of what they obviously mean.
Maybe you should read the first page where we ALREADY went through this once then you decided to declare a new game with apparently entirely different rules.This is a bald-faced lie. The first page of this thread has nothing to do with parties, and my only contribution to it came at the very end when I said that +4 hit/+4 damage was a massive damage boost, which i then proved in page 2.
Stop lying to people, stop misquoting people, stop putting words in peoples' mouths, and stop intentionally twisting peoples' words to mean the opposite of what they obviously mean.
Ok so, tempers are hot, how bout we calm down and go back to being constructive? What was said in the previous page is unimportant. We are looking at the viability of the companion option of hunters bond. Lets see how viable it actually is.
Ok so lets make a party then shall we?
2handed Fighter
Archer Ranger
Debuff/Buff Cleric (IE focuses on his spells)
Conjurationist wizardThat work for everyone?
Sure. That's actually going to work quite well for the Ranger. What level are we building this party at?
Sure. That's actually going to work quite well for the Ranger. What level are we building this party at?Ok so lets make a party then shall we?
2handed Fighter
Archer Ranger
Debuff/Buff Cleric (IE focuses on his spells)
Conjurationist wizardThat work for everyone?
How about 6? Full BAB attackers get 2nd attack, ranger has 2nd favored enemy.
How about 6? Full BAB attackers get 2nd attack, ranger has 2nd favored enemy.Sure. That's actually going to work quite well for the Ranger. What level are we building this party at?Ok so lets make a party then shall we?
2handed Fighter
Archer Ranger
Debuff/Buff Cleric (IE focuses on his spells)
Conjurationist wizardThat work for everyone?
Sure. You want to build any of them or should I just do it all? I don't think they need to be anything more fancy than the stub I provided for the Fighter before -- key stat(s), BAB, one or two relevant feats, etc. Thoughts? I'd rather avoid building 4 full characters + an AC, even just at level 6.
Maybe you should read the first page where we ALREADY went through this once then you decided to declare a new game with apparently entirely different rules.This is a bald-faced lie. The first page of this thread has nothing to do with parties, and my only contribution to it came at the very end when I said that +4 hit/+4 damage was a massive damage boost, which i then proved in page 2.
Stop lying to people, stop misquoting people, stop putting words in peoples' mouths, and stop intentionally twisting peoples' words to mean the opposite of what they obviously mean.
My apologies, since the REST of our calculations were one Page 1, I forgot that my retort was on Page 2.
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.
I am assuming a 5 person party where, for some inexplicable reason, 2 members are the Fighter you stat'd up.
Also, stop being a child.
PS, since you changed the goal posts, please provide a balanced party and provide expected physical damage output pre/post Hunter's Bond in the EXACT same theoretical situation as originally proposed.
I definitely think you could justify modifying the Hunter's Bond buff into a quick action. That way the archer ranger can pop full attacks each round and once the party buffs are in place the party gets a round or two of bonuses to their full attack. With a quick action the ranger's DPR doesn't have to take a hit and it can still give the party a needed boost.
I would also suggest that allowing the bonus to apply to any enemies that are of the same type. That way if the party is facing a horde of orc beserkers any attack during that round gets the benefit regardless of target. This gives the ability utility at getting rid of minions instead of only being useful vs BBEG with lots of HP. As it currently stands the really useful Favored Enemies for the hunter's bond are Giants (High HP/CR ratio), Dragon (High HP/CR ratio, generally single opponent), and Humans (assuming classed humans are present throughout all levels of play), and maybe outsider and undead.
Sure. You want to build any of them or should I just do it all? I don't think they need to be anything more fancy than the stub I provided for the Fighter before -- key stat(s), BAB, one or two relevant feats, etc. Thoughts? I'd rather avoid building 4 full characters + an AC, even just at level 6.
I dont have time right this moment to build them. If you want to go ahead, other wise we can pick it up this evening if you prefer. And I think stubs are fine. Fighter should have weapon focus, weapon spec, power attack. Other then that not overly important i think. Ranger has the archery style. Lets assume the wizard is going to be using scorching ray or acid arrow (to benefit from the ranger's ability somewhat but not incredibly). And lets assume the cleric hasnt dumped but doesnt have an amazing strength, 14 maybe? swinging a mace?
Heh; by "conjurationist" I figured you meant a summoning-type. That's OK anyway, we'll make do. I'll work on it, though I'm not dropping everything for it. Probably won't be til tonight before I have anything more to post.
I dont have time right this moment to build them. If you want to go ahead, other wise we can pick it up this evening if you prefer. And I think stubs are fine. Fighter should have weapon focus, weapon spec, power attack. Other then that not overly important i think. Ranger has the archery style. Lets assume the wizard is going to be using scorching ray or acid arrow (to benefit from the ranger's ability somewhat but not incredibly). And lets assume the cleric hasnt dumped but doesnt have an amazing strength, 14 maybe? swinging a mace?
Sure. You want to build any of them or should I just do it all? I don't think they need to be anything more fancy than the stub I provided for the Fighter before -- key stat(s), BAB, one or two relevant feats, etc. Thoughts? I'd rather avoid building 4 full characters + an AC, even just at level 6.
The only thing REMOTELY relevant to the topic is Zurai producing one of his so called "balanced parties" at level 20 facing a AC 36 monster that happens to be a Ranger's Favored Enemy and producing the non-spell damage output of the members of the party with and without Hunter's Bond.
Also, I doubt Favored Enemy would apply to spells. It specifically says "weapon attack and damage rolls." While rays may have attack rolls, they are not weapons.
I dont have time right this moment to build them. If you want to go ahead, other wise we can pick it up this evening if you prefer. And I think stubs are fine. Fighter should have weapon focus, weapon spec, power attack. Other then that not overly important i think. Ranger has the archery style. Lets assume the wizard is going to be using scorching ray or acid arrow (to benefit from the ranger's ability somewhat but not incredibly). And lets assume the cleric hasnt dumped but doesnt have an amazing strength, 14 maybe? swinging a mace?
Sure. You want to build any of them or should I just do it all? I don't think they need to be anything more fancy than the stub I provided for the Fighter before -- key stat(s), BAB, one or two relevant feats, etc. Thoughts? I'd rather avoid building 4 full characters + an AC, even just at level 6.
The only thing REMOTELY relevant to the topic is Zurai producing one of his so called "balanced parties" at level 20 facing a AC 36 monster that happens to be a Ranger's Favored Enemy and producing the non-spell damage output of the members of the party with and without Hunter's Bond.
Also, I doubt Favored Enemy would apply to spells. It specifically says "weapon attack and damage rolls." While rays may have attack rolls, they are not weapons.
There is clear precedent for such 'weapon like' spells to be affected by somethig like this in 3.5. Unless I see something official that says otherwise or some indication that the rules had changed, I would go with the 3.5 interpretation presented in complete mage. No reason to nerf an already weak ability, and its not like its some rediculous amount of damage added.
Since the hunter's bond works fine in some very rare situation, it could be a hunter's feature like "wild empathy" is. I would not like to eliminate it, since it's rarely used (if not for the dwarf hunter of the core rulebook XD ) it could be extend to every ranger, in this case someone would eventually take advantage of these odd situations.
Oh and again, it doesn't fit in the discussion but... gather all humanoids in 1 category just to always use those huge bonuses the ranger has, it's no sense.
It would be interesting to have an alternate bonus and the parer of a developer or something to know which is the level of power of an alternative (for example I think something like fighter's weapon training for bows/arrows or two weapon would be too strong?)