| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it'd be nice to expand on the share spells ability. As in, when the hunter, casts barkskin on herself, the animal companion also gains the benefit (could always have the CL be halved for purpose of duration and whatnot to not make it too OP).How about having the hunter use a swift action to give his pet a boost dependent on level;
1. Armor Class and saving throws, or
2. Bonus to hit and damage
This along with specific spells that can only be cast on the pet (i.e. magic fang, barkskin, bless, cure light wounds, etc...)
Thoughts?
I REALLY like this idea. it gives the class a really cool ability that nobody else has and helps bring the animal companion up in later levels when it is not as strong. Also, usually you have to decide whether to buff yourself or your companion. For the summoner, the current best pet class, it just buffs the eidolon, but being able to do both helps strengthen the idea of both the hunter and companion fighting together as opposed to hunter sits in back and continually buffs companion like the summoner does.
That would be great, one of the things to keep in mind is tracking resources. It's going to be a pain to have to track each spell's duration and calculate it separately for Hunter and companion. The easiest solution is just to have it affect them both for the same amount of time (and require that they be within 5 feet of each when casting).I think it'd be nice to expand on the share spells ability. As in, when the hunter, casts barkskin on herself, the animal companion also gains the benefit (could always have the CL be halved for purpose of duration and whatnot to not make it too OP).How about having the hunter use a swift action to give his pet a boost dependent on level;
1. Armor Class and saving throws, or
2. Bonus to hit and damage
This along with specific spells that can only be cast on the pet (i.e. magic fang, barkskin, bless, cure light wounds, etc...)
Thoughts?
I suggested this multiple times pages ago xD
Glad someone else said it now though! 2 people arriving at the same conclusion independently means it might be a good idea.
|
The "hunter" class as written is a total misnomer, and huge letdown.
Hunter invokes images of: British men chasing foxes, African safari guys chasing the biggest animals they can find, a man and his dog shooting ducks. A hunter would be a ranger archetype that loses spell casting and gains a full progression animal companion. A hunter is not a nature worshiper; a hunter takes pleasure from murdering animals for sport, get rid of the alignment restriction.
But putting that aside, what is the hunter class here? a mediocre druid. Lets compare:
hit dice: same as druid
skills: same ranks/level as druid, gets 2 more class skills
alignment restriction: same as druid
BAB: same as druid
spell progession: worse than druid (same as bard)
saves: switched good from wil to ref, but still 2 good saves like druid.
animal companion: as druid, plus gets some bonus feats
wild empathy: same as druid, but gets a level later
woodland stride: same as druid but gets 3 levels later
loses: nature sense, trackless step, resist nature's lure, venom imunity, thousand faces, timeless body
gains: track, swift tracker as ranger, and master hunter at 20
loses: wild shape, gains animal focus. gets it at 1st level instead of 4th, but otherwise is a lesser form of wildshape. Wildshape gives size bonuses to stats stacking with your enhancement bonuses from spells, magic ites etc., animal focus gives non-stacking enhancement bonuses. Good at low levels, useless at higher levels.
In a nutshell, you lose some spell casting and reduce your wildshape ability to gain some bonus teamwork feats. Pretty poor trade.
I'd love to see an actual hunter class, no spellcasting, full bab, martial weapon profs, 6 skill points, d10hd, animal companion, change the animal focus to affect the companion instead of the hunter.
Or rename it to Warden. Still needs a major boost to bring it up to par with the core classes.
The "hunter" class as written is a total misnomer, and huge letdown.
Hunter invokes images of: British men chasing foxes, African safari guys chasing the biggest animals they can find, a man and his dog shooting ducks. A hunter would be a ranger archetype that loses spell casting and gains a full progression animal companion. A hunter is not a nature worshiper; a hunter takes pleasure from murdering animals for sport, get rid of the alignment restriction.But putting that aside, what is the hunter class here? a mediocre druid. Lets compare:
hit dice: same as druid
skills: same ranks/level as druid, gets 2 more class skills
alignment restriction: same as druid
BAB: same as druid
spell progession: worse than druid (same as bard)
saves: switched good from wil to ref, but still 2 good saves like druid.
animal companion: as druid, plus gets some bonus feats
wild empathy: same as druid, but gets a level later
woodland stride: same as druid but gets 3 levels later
loses: nature sense, trackless step, resist nature's lure, venom imunity, thousand faces, timeless body
gains: track, swift tracker as ranger, and master hunter at 20
loses: wild shape, gains animal focus. gets it at 1st level instead of 4th, but otherwise is a lesser form of wildshape. Wildshape gives size bonuses to stats stacking with your enhancement bonuses from spells, magic ites etc., animal focus gives non-stacking enhancement bonuses. Good at low levels, useless at higher levels.In a nutshell, you lose some spell casting and reduce your wildshape ability to gain some bonus teamwork feats. Pretty poor trade.
I'd love to see an actual hunter class, no spellcasting, full bab, martial weapon profs, 6 skill points, d10hd, animal companion, change the animal focus to affect the companion instead of the hunter.
Or rename it to Warden. Still needs a major boost to bring it up to par with the core classes.
You know, what you are describing sounds more like a ranger archetype than any kind of gish.
And this is the Gish book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This may sound hostile, but I promise that isn't my intent. I'm just genuinely curious about design process:
Who thought that mixing the Ranger and the Druid would be a good idea to begin with? The classes are already so similar (with the Druid being the "spell-casting woodlander" and the Ranger being the "combative woodlander") that I don't see how this made it to the final play-testing "cut."
This may sound hostile, but I promise that isn't my intent. I'm just genuinely curious about design process:
Who thought that mixing the Ranger and the Druid would be a good idea to begin with? The classes are already so similar (with the Druid being the "spell-casting woodlander" and the Ranger being the "combative woodlander") that I don't see how this made it to the final play-testing "cut."
Well, there is no 6-level version of the druid, where there is one for arcane (bard, magus) and cleric (inquisitor).
Seems like a gap that could be filled.
I Imagine that the obvious Ranger/Druid mashup would be a combat focused shapeshifter... but this would run wildly out of control very quickly. Druids are already darn good without needing a full BAB or combat styles... I think avoiding wildshape on any other class is probably a good move.
So what is the other feature they have that can be focused on? Companion. Again... makes sense. The problem is that the companion, regardless of how many bonus teamwork feats you get, won't be much better than a Druid's companion. And the Hunter will be far worse on its own than a wildshaping druid OR a straight ranger.
It would probably be a good idea to look at other ways to make this class work. Heck, a whole second companion might be the ticket.... then the Hunter is his own pack.
really is pretty hard to make up the gaping wound that wildshape left.
If the hunter was put together to do something differently than the druid, we might not notice that it was worse than the druid. We don't notice that a druid "has moar powah!" when we play an inquisitor, for example.
You know, what you are describing sounds more like a ranger archetype than any kind of...The "hunter" class as written is a total misnomer, and huge letdown.
Hunter invokes images of: British men chasing foxes, African safari guys chasing the biggest animals they can find, a man and his dog shooting ducks. A hunter would be a ranger archetype that loses spell casting and gains a full progression animal companion. A hunter is not a nature worshiper; a hunter takes pleasure from murdering animals for sport, get rid of the alignment restriction.But putting that aside, what is the hunter class here? a mediocre druid. Lets compare:
hit dice: same as druid
skills: same ranks/level as druid, gets 2 more class skills
alignment restriction: same as druid
BAB: same as druid
spell progession: worse than druid (same as bard)
saves: switched good from wil to ref, but still 2 good saves like druid.
animal companion: as druid, plus gets some bonus feats
wild empathy: same as druid, but gets a level later
woodland stride: same as druid but gets 3 levels later
loses: nature sense, trackless step, resist nature's lure, venom imunity, thousand faces, timeless body
gains: track, swift tracker as ranger, and master hunter at 20
loses: wild shape, gains animal focus. gets it at 1st level instead of 4th, but otherwise is a lesser form of wildshape. Wildshape gives size bonuses to stats stacking with your enhancement bonuses from spells, magic ites etc., animal focus gives non-stacking enhancement bonuses. Good at low levels, useless at higher levels.In a nutshell, you lose some spell casting and reduce your wildshape ability to gain some bonus teamwork feats. Pretty poor trade.
I'd love to see an actual hunter class, no spellcasting, full bab, martial weapon profs, 6 skill points, d10hd, animal companion, change the animal focus to affect the companion instead of the hunter.
Or rename it to Warden. Still needs a major boost to bring it up to par with the core classes.
I have to second this, as there is already some level of archetype for Ranger that meets several of the points you're asking for. I think we need to provide the best feedback through playtesting and analysis we can so we can help shore up the weaknesses of the class as presented (which many people have done a great job in my opinion).
And in case you missed it pointed out several times already in the thread, the Companion also shares the Animal Focus benefits. It's in the text already.
When you say hunter, I think someone who's adept at stalking the various beasts of the wild, and capable of bringing them down.
He wields a bow or a gun, and is extreely familiar with pray he knows how to hunt.
In short, he's a ranger.
really is pretty hard to make up the gaping wound that wildshape left.Well...if you take limited wildshape off the table :)
I still like my Warg idea even if no one else did.
Being able to enter and take over your animal companion, and eventually other animals...come one, that is cool.
It is neat; but it doesn't fit the Hunter class name nor the flavor text they provided. They'd have to change the name to something like Animal Mystic (which I mentioned earlier) and alter the flavor text to be more akin to some kind of mystic animal taker-over.
Also, I worry about the the mechanics needed to do something like this. I'd rather it be a Hunter Archetype: Animal Mystic.
I really want to see the Hunter flavor text hit the mark with the mechanics and I think it can happen with everyone's feedback.
|
really is pretty hard to make up the gaping wound that wildshape left.Well...if you take limited wildshape off the table :)
I still like my Warg idea even if no one else did.
Being able to enter and take over your animal companion, and eventually other animals...come one, that is cool.
It is neat; but it doesn't fit the Hunter class name nor the flavor text they provided. They'd have to change the name to something like Animal Mystic (which I mentioned earlier) and alter the flavor text to be more akin to some kind of mystic animal taker-over.
Also, I worry about the the mechanics needed to do something like this. I'd rather it be a Hunter Archetype: Animal Mystic.
I really want to see the Hunter flavor text hit the mark with the mechanics and I think it can happen with everyone's feedback.
I'm not sure the fixation on the Animal companion fits it either, but I hear your point.
At this point however, one of the primary features is taking on animal aspects, so I don't know that it is to much of a stretch from that to be able to take over animals (low CR obviously, possibly with buffs when taking over your own Animal Companion)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of me wishes this was the class that got the rewrite, not the arcanist. The arcanist was a fine power level wise, and, while boring, class feature wise too.
Basically, I wanted to playtest a hunter, but there was nothing drawing me to it.
Teamwork feats would be OK, and could be interesting. But Animal Aspect leaves a sour taste in my mouth, one I don't have at all with the Inquisitor's judgements. While it's true that people will just use it on different aspects than their belts or headbands, as another poster said, the main class feature of this class is just shifting around gold pieces.
Combine that with the the spell list composed of a lot of offensive and control spells (and thus save based), it feels that the spells wouldn't be used for much more than buffing the animal companion.
The blog post makes me hopeful, but I sort of hope it gets surgery, not a bandage.
Part of me wishes this was the class that got the rewrite, not the arcanist. The arcanist was a fine power level wise, and, while boring, class feature wise too.
Basically, I wanted to playtest a hunter, but there was nothing drawing me to it.
Teamwork feats would be OK, and could be interesting. But Animal Aspect leaves a sour taste in my mouth, one I don't have at all with the Inquisitor's judgements. While it's true that people will just use it on different aspects than their belts or headbands, as another poster said, the main class feature of this class is just shifting around gold pieces.
Combine that with the the spell list composed of a lot of offensive and control spells (and thus save based), it feels that the spells wouldn't be used for much more than buffing the animal companion.
The blog post makes me hopeful, but I sort of hope it gets surgery, not a bandage.
It's an easy enough fix with animal aspect: just make them inherent bonuses instead of enhancement or competence. Granted, it's still not that exciting, but it'll stack to better effect.
It seems like the class is going to be okay, overall. I do have one minor caveat, though, and that's their spell list. They should really get whatever's on the ranger spell list, too.
What they can't be "instinct" bonuses;) Though I wouldn't mind if they were competence bonuses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rename it beastlord, then you get the correct image.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would much rather have it named beastmaster but beastlord is still better then hunter. It doesn't help that every time I see the name "hunter" I think of the huntsman from Freekazoid:)
What they can't be "instinct" bonuses;) Though I wouldn't mind if they were competence bonuses.
Because adding an entirely new bonus type is probably unnecessary? Competence bonuses means the skill buffs wouldn't stack. As it is, hunter isn't going to be best at anything at all. Letting their skill bonus from Animal Aspect and items stack isn't really OP at all.
If you want, you could use insight as the bonus type with this ability instead. Very few things give insight bonuses and none of them, to my recollection, are ability score boosts. Plus, it fits thematically with a class that taps into their more animal nature to better hunt in the wild.
Insight bonuses would be good since it could be linked to instincts or primal stuff.
really is pretty hard to make up the gaping wound that wildshape left.Well...if you take limited wildshape off the table :)
I still like my Warg idea even if no one else did.
Being able to enter and take over your animal companion, and eventually other animals...come one, that is cool.
I liked the Warg idea. Honestly the only image I can come up with when thinking of the Hunter's abilities is Beastmaster but the casting doesn't fit. I'm on the bandwagon of wanting to use and get more out of Animal Aspect but doing cool mystical things with animals is something that's missing.
One thought I had when I realized that the pet gets animal aspects was the disappointment that we couldn't have seperate animal aspects and that Animal Focus didn't grant things like claws or fins. Think about it; You get Tiger Aspect, grow some claws and get a dex bonus. Then your Wolf animal companion gets Shark aspect, gets a swim speed. Then you use your Ride Check to surf your wolf to attack an enemy in the water.
TL;DR: I want to surf a wolf-shark.
LOL
I suggested earlier that maybe perhaps instead of the animal companion being set in stone, it be more of a nature spirit, that takes the forms of animals that make sense for the area.
Grasslands, it might become a lion or gazelle...
Water, shark or gator
Mountains, ram or bear
etc.
Keep it with the same base stats, then modified by form, and have stats for it in spirit form so it can combat incorporeal nasties too.
Basicly, the AC gets the druids wildshape, instead of the PC.
LOL
I suggested earlier that maybe perhaps instead of the animal companion being set in stone, it be more of a nature spirit, that takes the forms of animals that make sense for the area.Grasslands, it might become a lion or gazelle...
Water, shark or gator
Mountains, ram or bear
etc.Keep it with the same base stats, then modified by form, and have stats for it in spirit form so it can combat incorporeal nasties too.
Basicly, the AC gets the druids wildshape, instead of the PC.
That would be badass actually. Its like having a Animorph Cohort.
|
LOL
I suggested earlier that maybe perhaps instead of the animal companion being set in stone, it be more of a nature spirit, that takes the forms of animals that make sense for the area.Grasslands, it might become a lion or gazelle...
Water, shark or gator
Mountains, ram or bear
etc.Keep it with the same base stats, then modified by form, and have stats for it in spirit form so it can combat incorporeal nasties too.
Basicly, the AC gets the druids wildshape, instead of the PC.
I kind of like that. You could even keep the flavor a little more open by giving it (the pet) like 3 "forms", like predator, herd, and plant (or something) with scaling bonuses to each build....
LOL
I suggested earlier that maybe perhaps instead of the animal companion being set in stone, it be more of a nature spirit, that takes the forms of animals that make sense for the area.Grasslands, it might become a lion or gazelle...
Water, shark or gator
Mountains, ram or bear
etc.Keep it with the same base stats, then modified by form, and have stats for it in spirit form so it can combat incorporeal nasties too.
Basicly, the AC gets the druids wildshape, instead of the PC.
Which would be pretty cool as a Hunter or Druid Archetype. But this doesn't fit the Hunter's theme at all. I think that there are a lot of people who want an Animal Mystic type of character, but I don't think the Hunter base class is going to fill the niche.
Okay... so here is my solution to this class.
Two full animal companions
Full stop.
Everything else can stay the same, the class is fixed, go to print.
Seriously though, this would mean that the teamwork end of things was very cool because it works across three combatants. The Hunter can remain a fairly weak character, because he is really all about his pets doing the fighting and staying back with a bow and spells.
You could also just give them a pool of companion levels to work with like the beastmaster ranger but amp up that pool to be higher than the Hunter's class level. You can limit his companions to be no higher than his class or character level, but he can get multiple pets.
So, how about this.
The Hunter gets the full-progression companion from the druid
At 4th level he gets the level minus three companion from the ranger.
At 8th level he gets another companion at half-level minus three.
So, at 10th level the Hunter would have;
A full 10th level druid companion with the full list of druid options.
A second 7th level companion with the full list of druid options.
And a third 2nd level companion with the full list of druid options. This last companion would be best used for a bird or other scouting pet since it will max out at level 7 at 20th level. It will never be a good combat option, but it adds a lot of favor.
Then change the name of Hunter Tactics to Pack Tactics... the Hunter is a packlord, beastlord, beastmaster whatever you want to call it.
------------------------------------------------------
Why this is okay to do:
Currently this is a build you can make with a combination of cavalier and druid.
You take 4 levels of cavalier for mount, tactician, and expert trainer. Choices are limited, but lets grab a wolf.
Then start taking druid levels.
You can grab the Horse Master feat, so your Mount will always be at full character level.
You get your druid companion, lets make it a big cat.
Then you grab boon companion and you are 4 levels behind on casting, with two full CL animal companions.
At 8th level you will have:
2 full on animal companions,
tactician 1,
cavaliers charge,
your 1st order ability
Challenge 2/day
heavy armor proficiency,
Martial weapon proficiency,
2nd level casting,
wildshape(1/day),
wild empathy,
woodland stride,
nature sense,
resist nature's lure,
trackless step,
a +7/+2 BAB,
Saves of Fort:+8, Ref:+2, Will:+5
4+int skills per level
So, thoughts?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay... so here is my solution to this class.
Two full animal companions
Action economy. Taking out home games and looking solely at PFS; that's one character who is playing 4 characters total at 10th level. 4 different initiatives. What about the sheer amount of free actions needed to issue commands to each animal companion?
Not to mention having to track each animal individually.
I would not allow such a character at my table if I was running a home game. And I sure wouldn't want to play with another character at a table who gets to make (let's assume they took 3 bird companions) 3 attacks on a full attack action; 9 attacks total from the animals and another 2 from their main class for a grand total of 11 attacks in one round.
Besides, this class shouldn't just be something another class can do. If the Magus was simply a mashup of Wizard and Fighter and brought nothing new, it would have been a waste of printing space. This class needs to do something different, not do something that's already achievable (as you've pointed out).
I truly think the focus should be on the one animal companion and make them stronger.
|
|
Okay... so here is my solution to this class.
Two full animal companions
Action economy. Taking out home games and looking solely at PFS; that's one character who is playing 4 characters total at 10th level. 4 different initiatives. What about the sheer amount of free actions needed to issue commands to each animal companion?
Not to mention having to track each animal individually.
I would not allow such a character at my table if I was running a home game. And I sure wouldn't want to play with another character at a table who gets to make (let's assume they took 3 bird companions) 3 attacks on a full attack action; 9 attacks total from the animals and another 2 from their main class for a grand total of 11 attacks in one round.
Besides, this class shouldn't just be something another class can do. If the Magus was simply a mashup of Wizard and Fighter and brought nothing new, it would have been a waste of printing space. This class needs to do something different, not do something that's already achievable (as you've pointed out).
I truly think the focus should be on the one animal companion and make them stronger.
Ditto to this. It can get really annoying when one guy is taking 30 minutes for each of his turns because he's functionally running 3+ characters. It's equally annoying when you start having to lay down houserules about the number of critters you can have on the board or how many free actions you can take to command them, etc. It's why the Master Summoner was just a terrible idea, and that was just an archetype.
My thoughts ....
First impression: A Ranger with the Boon Companion feat seems to be much better than the Hunter in nearly every way.
Change the class from a prepared spell casting class to a limited know spell caster like the Sorcerer.
Use the Ranger spell list instead of the Druids.
Change "Track" ... Simply change this to a Survival skill bonus. +1/2 level to all Survival skill checks.
Use the Ranger spell list instead of the Druids.
And the 5th and 6th level spells come from... where exactly? Ranger only has up to "4th" level spells. I thought we were aiming at up to 6th level spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay... so here is my solution to this class.
Two full animal companions
Action economy. Taking out home games and looking solely at PFS; that's one character who is playing 4 characters total at 10th level. 4 different initiatives. What about the sheer amount of free actions needed to issue commands to each animal companion?
Not to mention having to track each animal individually.
I would not allow such a character at my table if I was running a home game. And I sure wouldn't want to play with another character at a table who gets to make (let's assume they took 3 bird companions) 3 attacks on a full attack action; 9 attacks total from the animals and another 2 from their main class for a grand total of 11 attacks in one round.
Besides, this class shouldn't just be something another class can do. If the Magus was simply a mashup of Wizard and Fighter and brought nothing new, it would have been a waste of printing space. This class needs to do something different, not do something that's already achievable (as you've pointed out).
I truly think the focus should be on the one animal companion and make them stronger.
Well, I already posted how this is very much doable within the current rules... so it isn't like I am tossing something out that you can't run into right now.
It is no more game-slowing than a Druid that has an animal companion and casts a Summon spell in each combat, and since the Hunter is way behind on summons, it is likely that they won't be using them. So, tit for tat, it will be pretty much the same.
The free action to issue commands is easily handled by allowing the Hunter to just use one free action to command all of his pets.
The other options that have come up just don't come anywhere near making up for the loss of 3 levels of casting plus wildshape. This might at least have a chance at doing that while increasing the concept of teamwork feats as a major class feature.
I have to assume that you would also disallow a Multi-classed cavalier/druid, a beasmaster ranger, and any class that makes heavy use of summon spells... particularly the Summoner and Druid.
Use the Ranger spell list instead of the Druids.And the 5th and 6th level spells come from... where exactly? Ranger only has up to "4th" level spells. I thought we were aiming at up to 6th level spells.
OK then, Druid and Ranger list.
OK then, Druid and Ranger list.Use the Ranger spell list instead of the Druids.And the 5th and 6th level spells come from... where exactly? Ranger only has up to "4th" level spells. I thought we were aiming at up to 6th level spells.
Which overlap a lot and would put things at strange levels. Druid list is fine. It's where Ranger stole its spells from.
My thought about Hunter's spell list
-All Druid spell (up to 6 level)
-All Ranger spell (however treat Ranger's 4th level spell as Hunter's 5th level spell)
-Beastshape, Plantshape, Elementalbody
My thought about Hunter's spell list
-All Druid spell (up to 6 level)
-All Ranger spell (however treat Ranger's 4th level spell as Hunter's 5th level spell)
-Beastshape, Plantshape, Elementalbody
It'd be easier to format it like this.
-All Druid Spells (Up to 6th Level)
-All Ranger Spells (Ranger Spells that also appear on the Druid Spell List use the Druid Spell Level)
-Beastshape only. Its not like most people use the other ones anyways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I already posted how this is very much doable within the current rules... so it isn't like I am tossing something out that you can't run into right now.
So why do we need a class that can already be achieved with the current options in game?
It is no more game-slowing than a Druid that has an animal companion and casts a Summon spell in each combat, and since the Hunter is way behind on summons, it is likely that they won't be using them. So, tit for tat, it will be pretty much the same.
So just because there are other examples of builds that slow combat to crawl it makes it okay to design a class with that in mind? The druid can choose not to cast summon spells. Also, keep in mind that summon spells have short durations and function differently than an animal companion.
The free action to issue commands is easily handled by allowing the Hunter to just use one free action to command all of his pets.
To give them individual commands or to issue one to all pets? In the first case, giving commands to three different creatures is a little excessive for a free action. Keep in mind, the Player's Handbook states that GMs can set reasonable limits as to how many free actions are allowed in a round.
The other options that have come up just don't come anywhere near making up for the loss of 3 levels of casting plus wildshape. This might at least have a chance at doing that while increasing the concept of teamwork feats as a major class feature.
While I don't disagree, your suggestion is not the solution to the problem. Throwing more pets (and taking longer to resolve your actions every round) does not make it any better. Others, including myself, and have contributed to this thread to offer suggestions on how to fix and improve the current build.
I have to assume that you would also disallow a Multi-classed cavalier/druid, a beasmaster ranger, and any class that makes heavy use of summon spells... particularly the Summoner and Druid.
You really shouldn't make any assumptions about someone you don't know. First off, summon spells are different than animal companions. Second, I have no issue with a different builds - a Cavalier/Druid could also keep his mount as his animal companion without any change. One that takes another companion would likely need two boon companion feats to bring to full. In addition, a Druid could just as easily take a Domain and the Cavalier can take boon companion or something else entirely.
Edited: Let's keep my personal preferences out of this discussion. My concern is the sheer length of time each round will take the Multi-Companion Hunter.
My thought about Hunter's spell list
-All Druid spell (up to 6 level)
-All Ranger spell (however treat Ranger's 4th level spell as Hunter's 5th level spell)
-Beastshape, Plantshape, Elementalbody
It'd be easier to format it like this.
-All Druid Spells (Up to 6th Level)
-All Ranger Spells (Ranger Spells that also appear on the Druid Spell List use the Druid Spell Level)
-Beastshape only. Its not like most people use the other ones anyways.
After confirming Ranger and Hunter's spell per day,
I think it is better that Ranger only spells are treated as one level higher.
Retray
-All Druid spell (up to 6 level)
-Ranger only spells (however they are treated one level higher)
-Beastshape I-IV (as Sorcerer spell)
Taking over other animals is an awesome idea, but it apparently doesn't have the traction required, since some are stuck with "Hunter can't be just a name, it has to define the character as a non-mystical dude that kills animals in the woods, even though they have 6th level spells and take on supernatural aspects."
The funny thing in all this is that, even though I definitely think a change is important and necessary re: Animal Aspect, in my own games, where I don't use any magic items at all, Animal Aspect would be quite powerful.
However, I recognize that this doesn't mean the ability is fine the way it is, this just means my games are weird (there's a monk my game that does fine, for example, even though I know the class is awful in a normal game).
It can't be an Enhancement bonus or it's just an ability worth cash money, which is lame.
I was thinking recently about a way to expand the power of the companion without having a new animal companion chart (which would be confusing when multi-classing came into the picture) and I think it dawned on me:
At certain levels (arbitrarily, I'll say ever 4, but it doesn't have to be), put something on the Hunter's level chart that buffs the companion. For example, every 4 Hunter levels, maybe the pet could get +1d10 hit die (with commensurate skills BAB, saves--fort/ref--skills, feats, etc.) as if the pet were gaining a class level of some kind (which also keeps it squarely in the realm of "animal" rather than magical beast?
Then, maybe some (or all) of these bonus hit dice could carry other benefits, like special powers or whatever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So just because there are other examples of builds that slow combat to crawl it makes it okay to design a class with that in mind? The druid can choose not to cast summon spells. Also, keep in mind that summon spells have short durations and function differently than an animal companion.
Alright, well I have dug through the thread, and I am coming up empty. This is supposed to be a sort of Beastmaster class that fights really well with his companion, I figured that more animals would be neat.
So, if summoning isn't too bad, how about using the summoner concept where they can cast Summon Nature's Ally as an SLA just like a 9-level caster, and they get to use their Hunter Tactics with summoned creatures?
Then the summons last 1 minute/level instead of 1 round/level and you can give them augment for free (again, just like summoner). SO basically you have the druid version of the summoner class without the wacky eidolon or the OP spell list. In trade, you get teamwork feats and the ability to have your companion out at the same time as your summoned creatures.
Would this slow down combat too much?
(Side note, to get 2 full companions with Cavalier/Druid you just need to take Boon Companion once for the druid pet and Horse Master for the cavalier mount)
|
|
Well, I already posted how this is very much doable within the current rules... so it isn't like I am tossing something out that you can't run into right now.It is no more game-slowing than a Druid that has an animal companion and casts a Summon spell in each combat, and since the Hunter is way behind on summons, it is likely that they won't be using them. So, tit for tat, it will be pretty much the same.
The free action to issue commands is easily handled by allowing the Hunter to just use one free action to command all of his pets.
The other options that have come up just don't come anywhere near making up for the loss of 3 levels of casting plus wildshape. This might at least have a chance at doing that while increasing the concept of teamwork feats as a major class feature.
I have to assume that you would also disallow a Multi-classed cavalier/druid, a beasmaster ranger, and any class that makes heavy use of summon spells... particularly the Summoner and Druid.
They've already got rules in PFS limiting the number of pets a character can have specifically to avoid table lag issues. While there are some archetypes that allow multiple pets, they are already barred from organized play or nerfed to not being able to use those features. Why on earth would they release a new class that can't use its primary feature(s) in Organized Play right out the gate?
It makes way more sense to power up the pet than add another one, especially since pets can get hard to keep competitive and alive at high levels anyways. Multiple pets is something better explored in an archetype.
To follow up, the only other thing I can really thin kof is to steal all the companion advancements from the Mammoth Rider PrC:
At 3rd level and every two levels thereafter, the natural armor bonus of a Hunter's Companion increases by +1.
At 7th level, a Hunter's Companion gains a +4 morale bonus against charm, compulsion, and fear effects.
At 10th level the Hunter's Companion increases to Huge size. The creature receives a –1 penalty on attack rolls and to AC, and a –2 penalty to Dexterity (to a minimum of 1); its base damage increases by one size category; and its reach increases to 10 feet. It also gains a +2 size bonus to its Strength and Constitution. At 3rd level and every two levels thereafter, the Strength bonus increases by an additional +2; the bonus to Constitution increases by an additional +2 at 5th and again at 9th level.
At 12th level, the Hunter's Companion's reach improves to 15 feet.
These are all pulled directly from the Mammoth Rider PrC from Paths of prestige.
A unique pet progression improvement would be better than poaching from the Mammoth Rider.
What about the pet gaining templates at set levels? Like gaining the Advanced template at one point, and then either the Celestial or Fiendish template (or something else) at another later point?
I can understand not wanting to just steal from the mammoth rider.
There are a few very cool things that could be done.One that I particularly enjoy the idea of is having an Awakened companion. No druid can do it, and it would be pretty cool to have an intelligent AC to partner with. It would be the smartest companion/mount in the game, and that adds a lot for me in terms of flavor. It also would open up a lot of options for the companion. You might actually get a wolf companion that can take Improved Trip!
You could use templates too. I think that getting a choice between the Giant or Advanced template would be good. Some people would prefer to keep a smaller AC, and some would prefer larger, and sometimes it varies from campaign to campaign how limiting a Huge size could be.
I don't know how I feel about celestial or fiendish as a template... these are good stat-wise, but I am not sure about the flavor of it.
I definitely want some better ability for healing the companion, since the Hunter is already behind on spellcasting and the druid list gets late access to cures.
With the Celestial/Fiendish templates:
I agree that there's some debatibility to their appropriateness, but I was kind of thinking about it as your pet coming to embody the ideal of a certain aspect of it's being. I was kind of thinkg a bit of Guenwyvar from the Drizzt novels as well :P
Well it could fit, but I am not sure that it is universal enough to warrant being a part of the core class. Perhaps an archtype could trade the advanced template for the celestial template... or maybe just do that in the base class.
That is actually a tough choice. Advanced is very good, but Celestial comes with super good defenses (DR 10/Good at level 11!). Tough choices, to me, are always a good thing for a class to have.
I still would like to see the Hunter's Companion have the chance at an int 13... combat expertise opens up a slew of options that could really set the Hunter's companion apart. I also just really like all the descriptions of attitudes for Awakened animals, and the spell generally. It isn't some big mechanical benefit (okay well maybe it is), but the roleplaying opportunities are amazing... Your animal companion becomes just as intelligent or MORE intelligent than the Humanoids you may meet. The personality of that companion starts to come into play more, and you become more like a team rather than a leader/follower.
It also makes the even-handed nature of teamwork feats start to feel more appropriate since you are pretty much intellectual equals. Your companion chooses to be your partner as much as you choose it.
I dunno, I am thinking a bit too much about how fun a sort of novelization of this concept would go... maybe it doesn't translate to thee tabletop that well.
+1 on this class being called beastlord or beastmaster.
Why doesn't he get wild empathy at 1st level when both of his parent classes get it?
What if the beastlord's animal companion was a magical beast combining the druid animal companions as base forms, the eidolon's HD/BAB progression, and limited evolution pools.
To balance things out the abilities animal companions come with could require "purchasing" with evolution points before additional evolutions could be applied.
Holy cow, why doesn't this get Wild Empathy indeed! Good catch Archomedes.
List of things to make the Hunter RAD AS S#~!:
1. Druidic Bard
Essentially inspire courage but only for himself and animals (I have brought this up before but it is always worth saying)
2. Fastball Special (team fighting rules)
Additional bonuses for fighting WITH the animal companion. If the anaimal companion has landed an attack against an enemy then the Hunter gains a +2 circumstance bonus on her attacks against that enemy on that turn. Same bonus for the animal companion if the Hunter has lander an attack in the last two turns. This bonus should scale. Probably an additional +1 to the competence bonus at 4th level and every two levels thereafter.
3. Additional Magical Forest Powers for Team Fighting!
Give the hunter a pool of "primal connection" or some similar hippy b!~&*@#+. Use these to give tactical powers examples:
-Transposition: you and the animal companion switch places as a swift action. (cheap)
-telekinetic charge but just for bears (or whatever)! (cheap)
-Set your bear on fire as a swift action (give animal companion magical flamming burst natural weapons for a minute). (medium price)
-turn your animal companion into a motorcycle (If it is not a suitable mount then it resizes to become one and gains +10 movement speed for hours per level; if already a suitable mount then give it +30 speed). (expensive)
4. Make That Bear a Fighter for Real
Give you animal companion Fighter feat progression as its animal hit die increases. Give the bear bonus hit die at strategic levels so it eventually always has the same number of hit die as the Hunter.