# (PHBII Optional Abilities) Dark Companion & Distracting Attack - Too Good?



## wayne62682 (Jul 17, 2006)

I am working on a Hexblade/Ranger for a campaign and asked my DM if I could use the PHBII options for each of them (Dark Companion for Hexblade, Distracting Attack for Ranger when I am high enough to get it).  However, he brought up a few issues about balance and both of them being too good for what you give up:



			
				My DM said:
			
		

> *Dark Companion*
> The Dark Companion option is feasible, but I do have a problem with it... it's far more beneficial to you than a familiar would be (because it has the potential to affect up to eight enemies at a time... one per adjacent square). An automatic -2 to AC/saves is a lot more valuable than a mere familiar, which grants virtually NO combat bonuses. Technically, however, it is an illusion, and all illusions can be disbelieved... which means I'd grant everyone a Will save before suffering the penalty. The effective "spell level" of the illusion is stated as being 1/4 of your Hexblade levels, so the base Will save DC would be 10 + [1/4 hexblade levels].
> 
> There's one sentence that confuses me, however: "...nor does is provoke attacks of opportunity from movement, because enemies automatically recognize it as an illusion." So if they automatically recognize it as an illusion, why are there any benefits from its presence in the first place?
> ...




He asked me if these have been tested for balance at all and what the general concensus is about their power... I do see his points but both of these options make a lot more sense for my character than a familiar (which is so pathetically weak it's not funny unless I try to get Improved Familiar) and an animal companion (which is alright...).  That and if they get a Will save against the Dark Companion, the DC is going to be so laughably easy that the ability might as well be worthless.  Thoughts/comments, anyone?  I plan to let him know what the general opinion is so he can make a more informed decision.


----------



## green slime (Jul 17, 2006)

Well, I generally dislike the "optional" rules in the PHBII over all. So this is really no exception.

Distracting Attack I'd never personally allow. Dark Companion I might allow, but I'd like to read the small text first, and make sure we are all  standing on common ground with regards to its capabilities. 

I'd be more likely to allow a free use of the Improved Familiar feat, or something similar, myself.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 17, 2006)

Distracting attack seems as wrong as wrong could be for rangers.

It is an ability that only benefits others, yet the archetypal image of a ranger in my mind is the lone wilderness hunter/warrior/scout. So what benefit the distracting attack?

To my mind the best use for a rangers animal companion is to have an animal companion horse, because being able to handle your mount as a free action can be handy, and having a mount that can get better (and use evasion) is nice. (I've had fun with a ranger who had a jack russel terrier for his animal companion - the DM shifted around his attributes so that he has less strength and more Con, since they are tough little beggers).

Although I'd always recommend DMs to rule that the ranger companion is treated as if (rgr level -3) rather than (rgr level/2) in order to keep the companion viable.


----------



## Moorcrys (Jul 17, 2006)

As for hexblades... 

The dark companion looked to me as if WOTC was giving a nice boost to a relatively underpowered class. You don't get it until level four anyway... I don't expect to see droves of players beating down the hexblade door to pick up the ability, unless they wanted to play one to begin with. That to me says its not unbalancing.

Two things I can see the DM doing without needing to change the ability:

First of all, it's easily dispelled -- denying you the ability for 24 hours. 

Second, the dark companion is an illusion without substance and must be in an open square to function properly -- basically a creepy figment. "Even though any creature can enter a dark companion's 5-foot space without restriction, it must occupy its own space in order to have any effect on enemies."

All an enemy combatant needs to do is step into the space the dark companion is occupying if they know it's an illusion... thereby denying the benefit altogether.


----------



## the_mighty_agrippa (Jul 17, 2006)

Distracting Attack only lasts until one of your allies attacks or until your next action.  So, a rogue might get the benefit but the rogue and fighter would not.  This is not really effective against 1/3 of monsters and a ranger using a ranged attack to give the benefit to the rogue means the rogue is in melee with the full BAB guy is 30 feet back (not ideal).  Or the lightly-armored ranger and rogue are in full melee (also risky).

I really like Distracting Attack.  Besides, what's wrong with giving the ranger something that benefits him beyond 4th level?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 17, 2006)

the_mighty_agrippa said:
			
		

> I really like Distracting Attack.  Besides, what's wrong with giving the ranger something that benefits him beyond 4th level?




Nothing, it's a good idea. But distracting attack doesn't benefit him, it benefits his companions!


----------



## frankthedm (Jul 17, 2006)

A 2 point penalty against AC and saves is awful strong. Especially since it aplies against all foes, not just the hexblade. Plus I dislike anything that goes conter to common sence, like how stepping _into_ the dark companion is how to negate It's effect. A fool stepping INTO a mass of black shadowstuff already causing him bad luck deserves to suffer, not benefit.

*To the OP DM:* Being a DM who likes adhering pretty close to power level of the core rules, I too was concerned about the PHB2 Hexblade's "black cat". I think rather than adding another roll to combat to mimic how most illusion spells work and to balance out a strong 2 point all around debuff on the foe, instead Require the cat to be IN the foe’s space to work and have the penalty apply only against the Hexblade. This way the Hex gets a little something, flavor is maintained, no disappointing save is rolled around and the BBEG does not get gimped against the entire party.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jul 17, 2006)

Thanks for your replies.. I've informed my DM of them and await his reply.. *frankthedm* I like your suggestion, but as a player I think it weakens the ability since it only applies to a single opponent rather than anything adjacent


----------



## Moorcrys (Jul 17, 2006)

Again I don't think it's overpowered for the hexblade, but if your DM is concerned and going along with frankthedm's suggestion and your thoughts wayne, perhaps you can keep the adjacent square idea, but the -2 penalty to AC and saves would only benefit the hexblade, as it is his personal 'pet'.

I hate the idea of imposing a will save on it though, as your DM suggested... hexblades have enough trouble getting off their class-defining curses.


----------



## Paraxis (Jul 17, 2006)

The whole illusion is known so should not provide benifit is wrong.

In the PHB2 there is a spell (sorry don't have book near me) called Chaotic Battle (I think) in the description a mass combat comes into being of illusionary combatants. Everyone knows its an illusion but still suffer penalties from the distraction of all the figments fighting. Has a cool picture of two of the iconic characters crawling through the spell.

The two abilities are not that strong, I agree that distracting shot does not fit the concept of ranger though.  But as someone else pointed out anyone taking advantage of the effect has to be in melee with the bad guy, a rogue for example 30' away can not sneak attack the target.


----------



## Krelios (Jul 17, 2006)

An opponent that is flanked doesn't allow a rogue to sneak attack that enemy at range. It would help a melee rogue, but then, so would the ranger standing next to the foe. I don't see how that's terribly overpowered. It really is about the equivalent of an animal companion.


----------



## Darkwulf (Jul 17, 2006)

I'm currently DM'ing a game where I allowed the ranger to take Distracting Attack.  I think it's working out well, and not too powerful for a couple of reasons.

The opponent is considered flanked _by the ranger_, not completely flanked for all purposes.  Therefore, unless a ranged rogue has some way of threatening with ranged weapons, they don't complete the flank, and can't sneak attack.  If they're a melee rogue, they'd be maneuvering for a flanking position anyway, and with the Tumble checks such characters can pull off, it's likely that they'd succeed.  And finally, the benefit extends to only one attack, so a rogue with iterative attacks only flanks for the first such attack.

You may notice that I've only discussed rogues in this argument.  That's because flanking really only has the strongest game benefit for characters with the Sneak Attack feature.  For everyone else, it's a small attack bonus, which while useful, isn't overwhelming.

Like I said, I'm running a game with such a character, and so far, I'm not finding it to be too overpowering.  Now, if I could just find something to do with those players that insist on playing mounted combatants...


----------



## Benimoto (Jul 17, 2006)

You might know the silence or invisibility spells are illusions, but they affect you nonetheless.

I personally don't think either of the abilities are particularly overpowered.  They're powerful, sure, but I think they need to be for anybody to actually consider them.

Familiars are fun, and they're popular for roleplaying, scouting, all the feats and spells that target or enhance them.  But they're mostly useless in combat, and intended to be so.  So saying that the Dark Companion is more powerful than a familiar is like saying that you think the burning hands spell is more powerful than comprehend languages.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jul 17, 2006)

Thank you all!  I think my DM has agreed to play both as is (although I cannot take Distracting Attack yet anyway) but reserve the right to modify them later if he chooses... or he might use frankthedm's point but he finds it a little odd that it would only benefit me, so hopefully he'll let it be as it is.

His counter to it being "a boost to an underpowered class" was: _Good point, but it's not about "giving a nice boost..." -- it's about an even swap of class features, which it is not. _

In any event, I think he will let me try it out, at least, and so I thank all of you for helping me!


----------



## MarkB (Jul 17, 2006)

Your DM seems to have a fairly commonplace misunderstanding of the nature of illusion spells. In fact, only Figment or Phantasm spells can be disbelieved - other spells in the Illusion school can have real effects whether you believe in them or not.


----------



## frankthedm (Jul 17, 2006)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> or he might use frankthedm's point but he finds it a little odd that it would only benefit me, so hopefully he'll let it be as it is.



Hexblade is a 'selfish' class, not one that concered with aiding his allies. My suggestion turns a small boost and big liability for the hexblade [familiar, aka XP draining bulleye] into a modest boost with little drawback [Bad luck kitty that dispel puts to sleep for a day]. Having the penalty apply to all foes really makes it _strong_, as in not taking it is foolish since it is comparable to the actualy hexy's curse. Having to _Ritutally Sacrifice _ your familiar and accept the XP loss would still be _well _ worth the way the PHB2 D.C. works.


----------



## the_mighty_agrippa (Jul 17, 2006)

Point out to the DM that you could forego Distracting Attack and just take the Natural Bond feat from CA instead and cause even more trouble.


----------

