Random 4E thought.
Sep. 29th, 2011 01:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexandraerinOne of the design considerations in D&D 4E was to protect the "action economy" against inflation... in previous editions, a haste spell would have more effect on the total damage inflicted in a combat than a fireball, and things like extra attacks and quickened spellcasting were among the surest ways to make a "cheesy" build.
In 4E, basically the only way you get extra attacks on a regular basis is if your combat role is Striker and damage is your thing, with the multiple attacks being how that's expressed. Exhibit A here is the Ranger, whose Twin Strike at-will ability is often held up as a power so useful that it obsoletes all other choices. I have my own thoughts on that subject, but mathematically it is hard to beat.
The first two Ranger builds presented in the Player's Handbook both had access to Twin Strike, which requires one to be using a ranged weapon like a bow or be wielding two weapons. The Beastmaster build from the first Martial Power expansion isn't set up for Twin Strike. Nothing stops a Beastmaster from taking Twin Strike and using it with a bow, or with something like a longsword and dagger... they'll lack the Prime Shot bonus of an Archery-built Ranger and the damage output of two bigger weapons, though.
The appeal of the Beastmaster is the animal companion, of course... but because of the "action economy", in a typical combat round either the beast attacks, or the master does. It's not able to attack freely. The options for using companions as mounts (via a feat, or by the late addition of a horse companion) can add a lot more consequence to the beast's presence, but otherwise it often ends up simply providing flanking, blocking, and cover while rarely making any attacks except the occasional one of opportunity. And the Beastmaster build is sort of infamous for being underpowered in the damage department, compared to more Twin Strike-optimal builds.
But here is my thought: if it's not critically unbalancing to have an at-will Ranger power where the Ranger attacks twice (and some people argue that it is), why would it be critically unbalancing to have an at-will Ranger power where the Ranger attacks and the companion attacks? It would work like twin strike... no damage bonus to either attack, with the explanation being that the act of coordinating takes a bit of attention and robs both attacks of some finesse.
The fact that the animal's attack wouldn't gain any benefits from a magic weapon would be a drawback, but the advantages of the extra body on the playing field would still be in effect, and you'd have the flexibility of being able to attack from two different locations.
...
The more I think about this, the more it becomes clear that the Ranger could be simplified from the five builds that currently comprise it (plus the two Essentials sub-classes) to a characters whose focus is on fast and flexible attacks.
Two at-will powers: Precision Strike and Rapid Strike. Precision Strike would be an attack with a hefty bonus to hit, and/or targeted against Reflex, with the regular attribute-based damage bonus. Rapid Strike would let you make two attacks without the bonus (like Twin Strike), but allowing any combination of ranged, melee, and beast companion attacks you can possibly make. A special line would note that if you have the ability to change weapons as a minor action, you can do so in between the two attacks.
In order to mathematically compare with Rapid Strike, Precision Strike might need to go so far as to allow a re-roll on a miss. And I think that would be okay. Rapid Strike would still be preferable in most situations, but in a "this one shot counts" situation Precision Strike would be there.
The class could be further simplified by eliminating Hunter's Quarry (and possibly re-jiggering the damage bonuses to make up for that... I'm not doing the math to how this Ranger would compare to other Strikers for this casual examination of the idea) and making rarely missing/rapidly striking the Ranger's whole Striker schtick.
Or possibly some version of Hunter's Quarry and Prime Shot would be one option instead of taking a Beast Companion... you get the added tactical/control element of the beast or you get even more damage. So we'd have two builds, call them Deadly Hunter and Beastmaster... the lone Ranger and the one who rides again.
I'm not ready to write-up a whole new version of the class, but I think I'm going to start experimenting with this in my games by allowing Beastmasters to sub in an animal attack as one of their Twin Strikes, since my current game has a mounted archer with Twin Strike.
In 4E, basically the only way you get extra attacks on a regular basis is if your combat role is Striker and damage is your thing, with the multiple attacks being how that's expressed. Exhibit A here is the Ranger, whose Twin Strike at-will ability is often held up as a power so useful that it obsoletes all other choices. I have my own thoughts on that subject, but mathematically it is hard to beat.
The first two Ranger builds presented in the Player's Handbook both had access to Twin Strike, which requires one to be using a ranged weapon like a bow or be wielding two weapons. The Beastmaster build from the first Martial Power expansion isn't set up for Twin Strike. Nothing stops a Beastmaster from taking Twin Strike and using it with a bow, or with something like a longsword and dagger... they'll lack the Prime Shot bonus of an Archery-built Ranger and the damage output of two bigger weapons, though.
The appeal of the Beastmaster is the animal companion, of course... but because of the "action economy", in a typical combat round either the beast attacks, or the master does. It's not able to attack freely. The options for using companions as mounts (via a feat, or by the late addition of a horse companion) can add a lot more consequence to the beast's presence, but otherwise it often ends up simply providing flanking, blocking, and cover while rarely making any attacks except the occasional one of opportunity. And the Beastmaster build is sort of infamous for being underpowered in the damage department, compared to more Twin Strike-optimal builds.
But here is my thought: if it's not critically unbalancing to have an at-will Ranger power where the Ranger attacks twice (and some people argue that it is), why would it be critically unbalancing to have an at-will Ranger power where the Ranger attacks and the companion attacks? It would work like twin strike... no damage bonus to either attack, with the explanation being that the act of coordinating takes a bit of attention and robs both attacks of some finesse.
The fact that the animal's attack wouldn't gain any benefits from a magic weapon would be a drawback, but the advantages of the extra body on the playing field would still be in effect, and you'd have the flexibility of being able to attack from two different locations.
...
The more I think about this, the more it becomes clear that the Ranger could be simplified from the five builds that currently comprise it (plus the two Essentials sub-classes) to a characters whose focus is on fast and flexible attacks.
Two at-will powers: Precision Strike and Rapid Strike. Precision Strike would be an attack with a hefty bonus to hit, and/or targeted against Reflex, with the regular attribute-based damage bonus. Rapid Strike would let you make two attacks without the bonus (like Twin Strike), but allowing any combination of ranged, melee, and beast companion attacks you can possibly make. A special line would note that if you have the ability to change weapons as a minor action, you can do so in between the two attacks.
In order to mathematically compare with Rapid Strike, Precision Strike might need to go so far as to allow a re-roll on a miss. And I think that would be okay. Rapid Strike would still be preferable in most situations, but in a "this one shot counts" situation Precision Strike would be there.
The class could be further simplified by eliminating Hunter's Quarry (and possibly re-jiggering the damage bonuses to make up for that... I'm not doing the math to how this Ranger would compare to other Strikers for this casual examination of the idea) and making rarely missing/rapidly striking the Ranger's whole Striker schtick.
Or possibly some version of Hunter's Quarry and Prime Shot would be one option instead of taking a Beast Companion... you get the added tactical/control element of the beast or you get even more damage. So we'd have two builds, call them Deadly Hunter and Beastmaster... the lone Ranger and the one who rides again.
I'm not ready to write-up a whole new version of the class, but I think I'm going to start experimenting with this in my games by allowing Beastmasters to sub in an animal attack as one of their Twin Strikes, since my current game has a mounted archer with Twin Strike.