According to the PRD:
"A ranger who selects an animal companion can choose from the following list: badger, bird, camel, cat (small), dire rat, dog, horse, pony, snake (viper or constrictor), or wolf."
Why isn't the full druid list available? I'm having a hard time figuring out why a ranger can have a pet python, but not a pet boar.
Because it would be Boar-ing? ~RUNS~
IMHO there is no reason to not include a boar on the list.
Maybe the default Golarian ranger is from some Middle East analog, so pigs are "unclean" and hence off the list. Of course, dogs ARE on the list, so I actually have no idea.
Isn't this just a hold over from the 3.5 SRD where they were limited in what creatures they could take at early levels?
Almost certainly, although they added "cat (small)".
I'd just ignore it and let them take the pig.
Me too.
|
A little off topic but, how about letting a paladin have a lion (like the druid big cat) instead of a horse? too much of a stretch?
I might make them wait a level or two, but really why not? The key here though, is that its supposed to be a mount and if they use it as something other then that then I'd ask them to please keep it a mount. If then they did not, then I'd make them take the horse instead.
A little off topic but, how about letting a paladin have a lion (like the druid big cat) instead of a horse? too much of a stretch?
Nope, I'd let them choose from the druid animal companion list, too. A gnome paladin mounted on a pig would be cool. :-)
Note, however, that most animal companions are size Small or Medium to start with.
EDIT: Actually, it specifically says that exotics mounts like boars, camels or dogs are suitable, so there you go.
|
|
A little off topic but, how about letting a paladin have a lion (like the druid big cat) instead of a horse? too much of a stretch?Nope, I'd let them choose from the druid animal companion list, too. A gnome paladin mounted on a pig would be cool. :-)
Note, however, that most animal companions are size Small or Medium to start with.
EDIT: Actually, it specifically says that exotics mounts like boars, camels or dogs are suitable, so there you go.
Ever play Fable 2? The country side is studded with statues of a knight riding a giant, fat pig. Its awesome.
James said in another thread that since the ranger is a martial character they limited the list to less offense/ attach oriented companions.
I'm too lazy to chase the thread down but it's out there for the search happy or folks with more time/ patience than I.
Tell the truth, Hogarth...it's because you have the perfect mini for it, right?
Me too. ;)
Character concept:
A little off topic but, how about letting a paladin have a lion (like the druid big cat) instead of a horse? too much of a stretch?
My first thought was a green dire tiger with yellow stripes named Battle Cat™.
|
A little off topic but, how about letting a paladin have a lion (like the druid big cat) instead of a horse? too much of a stretch?My first thought was a green dire tiger with yellow stripes named Battle Cat™.
Funny story, I played a game with a 6th level gnome druid who rode on the back of a Tiger. Which she of course named Battle Cat.
James said in another thread that since the ranger is a martial character they limited the list to less offense/ attach oriented companions.
That's silly. The small cats are more offense-oriented than boars are. So are wolves and badgers.
James said in another thread that since the ranger is a martial character they limited the list to less offense/ attach oriented companions.That's silly. The small cats are more offense-oriented than boars are. So are wolves and badgers.
Or a boa constrictor...
More to the point, Rangers can have dire rats, but that's not actually an entry on the animal companion list, from what I can tell...
Sometimes you just get a hankering for some bacon. The relationship never lasts.
Creative Director
|
The short version:
Rangers are already combat-focused characters. Giving them a combat-focused pet would dilute their actual class abilities. ALSO: We want druids to be the iconic animal pet class, and that means they get better pets.
The long version might have to wait for Jason to get back from Gen Con Australia.
|
Creative Director
|
More to the point, Rangers can have dire rats, but that's not actually an entry on the animal companion list, from what I can tell...
Rules for Dire Rat animal companions are in the upcoming Bestiary. Druids can have them too. There's about another 23 animals in the Bestiary, from the electric eel to the ankylosaurus that druids can also have... but few of them are good for rangers.
I'm curious why boars are considered an offense-oriented animal compared to cats. I'd think that sprint + 1d6 + 2d3 + trip would imply a more offense-oriented framework than 1d8 + ferocity, assuming that ferocity is the same suicidal special ability as in 3.5. And it's not like the small cats are holdovers, either, because rangers didn't get any cats in 3.5.
All I can say is, I live in an area with boars and cougars. I'm not half as scared of the cougars.
The short version:
Rangers are already combat-focused characters. Giving them a combat-focused pet would dilute their actual class abilities. ALSO: We want druids to be the iconic animal pet class, and that means they get better pets.
The long version might have to wait for Jason to get back from Gen Con Australia.
Even within these limits one can just use the dog stats for a pig and balance would be preserved.
Dogs can bite, have scent and are about the same size as pigs (give or take) - that makes the dog a good stat equivalent for a pig. Pigs are also easily trained and relatively smart. In addition a halfling could ride a pig, just as easy as a riding dog.
Huh? Our party's ranger from my first 3E game had not one pig-for-a-friend, but SIX, and each had a character class too!
...oh, you were talking about Animal Companions, nevermind then.
Short story: In 3.5E my wonderful DM allowed my 1st level Druid(aspiring Arcane Heirophant) to use a Boar for his companion. The math was relatively easy... 1d6 dmg, 4 Natural AC... in place of the typical 1d8/6 NAC.(I think we dropped the DEX to +0 as well, deeming it a CON animal.) Add Druid progression as normal. We both viewed Ferocity as a negative... cuz the Boar basically goes into rage, attacking friend or foe without its handler(who is likely unconcious if the animal is in the negative health & bleeding), so it was left intact.
Kinda sorta what the Pathfinder folks did to the PFCORE Druid's list.
-------------------------
I say let him have the Boar with the stipulation that "if it gets TOO CRAZY we'll need to work his stats over."
Ferocity with a Warrior-class rider... I would ramp up the ride check on that bad boy something fierce. "Ever been to a Rodeo? Well ya have now! Ride 'em cowboy!"
Happy player, exciting/interesting character, possibility for some unique baddies using the same tricks.[/b](That last part is usually the selling point.)
The short version:
Rangers are already combat-focused characters. Giving them a combat-focused pet would dilute their actual class abilities. ALSO: We want druids to be the iconic animal pet class, and that means they get better pets.
The long version might have to wait for Jason to get back from Gen Con Australia.
Even within these limits one can just use the dog stats for a pig and balance would be preserved.
Dogs can bite, have scent and are about the same size as pigs (give or take) - that makes the dog a good stat equivalent for a pig. Pigs are also easily trained and relatively smart. In addition a halfling could ride a pig, just as easy as a riding dog.
So funny. This thread is reminding me of riding pigs on my uncle's farm as a kid. You will so end up in the mud. Pigs do get a lot huger than a dog btw.
|
|
Huh never noticed that constraint. Ah well I'll just ignore it anyway after all I would have thought that the advancement being 3 lvl's behind the druid would have been a big enough cost to differentiate between a Ranger and Druid.
I tend to agree. In fact, it was in part because of this more limited animal companion list that I removed the Druid level -3 rule from the Spell-less Ranger class variant in KQ. I really think letting the ranger use his actual level as his equivilent druid level is not a problem and helps keep his animal companion alive and fun to play.