| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a 5th level ranger who has put off getting an animal companion until he finds an allosaurus. We are currently playing RORL in varasia and I can find no plausible way there are dinosaurs roaming in the wild. After much complaining, I told him he could go to Magnimar and look for exotic pets in the trade markets/ black markets. After spending a solid week gametime, while all the other pcs where sleeping at the table, he found a T-rex and a stegasarus. (30% chance to find after rolling over 10 dinosaurs and t-rex and allosaurus twice) He is still not happy and doesn't want to use his Boon companion feat on anything but an allosaurus. Now he is going to leave the party to find he one true love while the other pcs start skinsaw!! How do other GMs run animal companions and the ritual of getting one? He says i'm being unreasonable by not just giving him what he wants. I just don't see how he can walk out into the woods for an hour and come back with a dinosaur. If he went into a desert, he wouldn't find a polar bear. Any advice on how to get past this without setting a tone with the rest of the group that whining and eye-rolling leads the gm to give you anything you want. he's our former gm, that's what makes this crazy....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's funny about this is...
The second option is to form a close bond with an animal companion. 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. If the campaign takes place wholly or partly in an aquatic environment, the ranger may choose a shark instead. This animal is a loyal companion that accompanies the ranger on his adventures as appropriate for its kind. A ranger's animal companion shares his favored enemy and favored terrain bonuses.
...Rangers don't even have access to the allosaurus.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would have just rolled dice and pretended that I rolled what was needed for the allosaurus. I got his stupid animal companion, everyone is happy, move forward. Or if you had a particular reason to not want him to have one, just tell the player up front.
Maybe he can save one from mistreatment or some predicament during the adventure. Then the player feels cool, gets the dinosaur, and everyone is happy. So just tell the player, "trust me, just go along on the adventure and see what happens".
Yup. It's not even an option for Rangers. Maybe he could dip in Druid.
Whale Cancer is right, allosaurus is available to Druids, the Beast Rider, and the Saurian Shaman.
What's funny about this is...
The second option is to form a close bond with an animal companion. 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. If the campaign takes place wholly or partly in an aquatic environment, the ranger may choose a shark instead. This animal is a loyal companion that accompanies the ranger on his adventures as appropriate for its kind. A ranger's animal companion shares his favored enemy and favored terrain bonuses....Rangers don't even have access to the allosaurus.
True, although a half-orc ranger could take the racial feat Beast Rider and get an elephant, pteranodon, rhinoceros, stegosaurus, or triceratops.
Yeah, fretgod99 has a good idea. If the ranger takes a level in Druid, then the elusive allosaurus can be found. YAY.
Yeah, fretgod99 has a good idea. If the ranger takes a level in Druid, then the elusive allosaurus can be found. YAY.
By RAW, if you want to stack the Ranger and Druid levels for the purpose of determining the companions levels you have to use the more restrictive list.
Additionally, you can still only call local animals to become your companion. Dinosaurs are not local to Varisia. You need to take a boat to Mwagami.
Yeah, fretgod99 has a good idea. If the ranger takes a level in Druid, then the elusive allosaurus can be found. YAY.By RAW, if you want to stack the Ranger and Druid levels for the purpose of determining the companions levels you have to use the more restrictive list.
I think there's some wiggle room to argue, but yeah that's probably true. I don't think I would have a problem allowing it in a home game, though.
I think there's some wiggle room to argue, but yeah that's probably true. I don't think I would have a problem allowing it in a home game, though.Yeah, fretgod99 has a good idea. If the ranger takes a level in Druid, then the elusive allosaurus can be found. YAY.By RAW, if you want to stack the Ranger and Druid levels for the purpose of determining the companions levels you have to use the more restrictive list.
Yeah. I would even be flexible with the ranger list, as long as what the character wanted made sense. e.g. if you are in Dinosria land of the Dinosaur kings, most rangers would probably have dinosaur companions that filled roles similar to those on the normal ranger list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let him walk. Obviously he's just trying to get what he wants any way he wants. If he wants to walk because he can't find a dinosaur in an area of the world where there are NONE let him. You as the GM shouldn't have to deal with this. It is a cooperative game, not a "give me everything or I'll leave" game.
He says i'm being unreasonable by not just giving him what he wants
This is what makes me think the way I do. If it comes off as too much vitriol that's fine by me.
Edited for reasoning
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A GM not allowing the strongest three animal companions in his game is completely reasonable. When those three animal companions can outshine or nearly match a fighter throughout the game and the player still has his druid actions to control, they are simply unbalanced. Let him walk.
A GM not allowing the strongest three animal companions in his game is completely reasonable. When those three animal companions can outshine or nearly match a fighter throughout the game and the player still has his druid actions to control, they are simply unbalanced. Let him walk.
And, he's not even a druid.
Yeah, fretgod99 has a good idea. If the ranger takes a level in Druid, then the elusive allosaurus can be found. YAY.Which means that since the Allosaurus ISN"T on the Ranger list he's computed as a first level Animal Companion. Your Ranger levels don't count.
I am fairly confident thats not how that works. I believe the levels stack regardless of the animal type assuming one of the contributing classes can have that animal.
That said, I do feel the GM is partially in the wrong. Assuming the ranger was allowed an allosaurus, (which they are not but if they were) the ranger should be permitted to find one. The rules say the ranger chooses an animal from the list, not the ranger must search the wilds for an animal on the list. Because such a thing can do exactly what has happened, derail a campaign. I view it the same as if a player wants to weild a specific weapon (IE a great axe instead of a great sword) the dm should make available said item to the player without the need to rely on random dice rolls to see if its around. Ecology shouldnt stand in the way of fun, neither should percentage dice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if one person's version of "fun" impiges on the others "fun"? Based on the player's reaction to not being allowed to have something they wanted and telling the GM You're being unreasonable b/c I'm not getting what I want I'd say this person's idea of "fun" does not go well with what the GM or other players consider "fun"
I need to stop using those quotes now "fun" just sounds weird in my head.
Did it again, D'oh!
Edit: Ninja'd, see above.
[...] I do feel the GM is partially in the wrong. Assuming the ranger was allowed an allosaurus, (which they are not but if they were) the ranger should be permitted to find one. The rules say the ranger chooses an animal from the list, not the ranger must search the wilds for an animal on the list. Because such a thing can do exactly what has happened, derail a campaign. I view it the same as if a player wants to weild a specific weapon (IE a great axe instead of a great sword) the dm should make available said item to the player without the need to rely on random dice rolls to see if its around. Ecology shouldnt stand in the way of fun, neither should percentage dice.
With respect, I disagree. A GM does have the right to put limits on player choices in her game. If she wishes to run a campaign without halflings, black powder, cavaliers, and dinosaurs (just to throw a few things out at random), that is her right, just as it is the right of any player not to play in that game because what they really wanted was to play a halfling gunslinger/cavalier riding a dinosaur. What is out of line is for a GM not to make these limits clear ahead of time.
I know you've been working toward the Divine Scion prestige class since 1st level and cleared that with me and I know you now technically qualify, but you're going to have to wait a couple more levels because I think it would work better for entry into that PrC with an adventure I've got planned for you when you get to that point.
Anyway, in this case it wasn't even a hard no (although as pointed out, allosauri aren't ranger pets, so it probably should have been). In the OP's world, dinosaurs exist, just not where the party currently is. Not every animal companion should be available in every given setting. I mean, c'mon, an arctic stegosaurus? A desert moose? That may not break the game power-wise, but it does a lot to break the equally important suspension of disbelief.
|
Yeah, fretgod99 has a good idea. If the ranger takes a level in Druid, then the elusive allosaurus can be found. YAY.Which means that since the Allosaurus ISN"T on the Ranger list he's computed as a first level Animal Companion. Your Ranger levels don't count.I am fairly confident thats not how that works. I believe the levels stack regardless of the animal type assuming one of the contributing classes can have that animal.
That said, I do feel the GM is partially in the wrong. Assuming the ranger was allowed an allosaurus, (which they are not but if they were) the ranger should be permitted to find one. The rules say the ranger chooses an animal from the list, not the ranger must search the wilds for an animal on the list. Because such a thing can do exactly what has happened, derail a campaign. I view it the same as if a player wants to weild a specific weapon (IE a great axe instead of a great sword) the dm should make available said item to the player without the need to rely on random dice rolls to see if its around. Ecology shouldnt stand in the way of fun, neither should percentage dice.
I think this apply to druid/ranger too:
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9qqn
Cavalier: Do animal companion levels from the druid class stack with cavalier mount levels?
If the animal is on the cavalier mount list and on the list of animal companions for your other class, your cavalier and druid levels stack to determine the animal's abilities. If the animal is not on the cavalier mount list, the druid levels do not stack and you must have different animals (one an animal companion, one a cavalier mount).
For example, if you are Medium druid and you choose a horse companion, levels in cavalier stack to determine the horse's abilities. If you are a Medium druid and you choose a bird companion, levels in cavalier do not stack to determine the bird's abilities, and you must choose a second creature to be your mount (or abandon the bird and select an animal companion you can use as a mount).
This same answer applies to multiclassed cavalier/rangers.
(Note that the design team discourages players from having more than one companion creature at a time, as those creatures tend to be much weaker than a single creature affected by these stacking rules, and add to the bookkeeping for playing that character.)
With respect, I disagree. A GM does have the right to put limits on player choices in her game. If she wishes to run a campaign without halflings, black powder, cavaliers, and dinosaurs (just to throw a few things out at random), that is her right, just as it is the right of any player not to play in that game because what they really wanted was to play a halfling gunslinger/cavalier riding a dinosaur. What is out of line is for a GM not to make these limits clear ahead of time.
Absolutely. The GM has the right to limit every single option in his game if he wants. He can say all animal companions are badgers for all I care. What he shouldnt do is say 'maybe'. If someone says 'can I use X class option. The dm should say 'No you cant use x, it [doesnt fit my world][falls outside my prefered play style][is over powered in my opinion][was once played by my mortal enemy and now i dont want it in my games]. Or 'Yes you can play x' and then give the player the opportunity to have and use X.
By all means tell the player he cant have a dinosaur animal companion because you are in a temperate region or whatever. But dont do the random roll bull. Make a choice and dont hide behind dice to exclude something you dont want.
I cannot agree. A player who demands special treatment - who feels that his whims are more powerful than theme, than plot, than plausibility - benefits from the sharp slap of no from time to time.
This isnt a whim. This is obviously a core desire for the character. If the player is willing to go out of his way for a given option, its not a whim. AND it doesnt violate plot or theme, as the DM was apparently willing to let OTHER EQUALLY IMPLAUSIBLE ANIMAL COMPANIONS INTO THE GAME. An allosaurus is not somehow more implausible then a t-rex. If the dm has said stood his ground and said no dinosaurs, i'd have been on his side.
Which is why I said he was partially in the wrong, not a jerk from jerkland. Instead he let the player run off the magnimar and roll dice to see if a class option was available when the rules give no such indication that you need to hunt down your animal companion.
He is still not happy and doesn't want to use his Boon companion feat on anything but an allosaurus.
You don't have to allocate Boon Companion to only one animal companion, if you replace the one you've got, which is a trivial task, then it carries over.
Yeah, it's mine! Give it back, LazarX! ;)
Kolokotroni: All right, I see where you're going with this. You agree that 'That doesn't fit/isn't allowed' would have been a reasonable response: your objection is that the GM said, 'There's a chance one happens to be around, but if it isn't, you're not going to be able to get one.' Does that about sum it up?
Sorry bout the mis quote doing too many things at once.
And yes, that about sums it up. There is no good reason to make an option for a place a % roll. If it doesnt belong it doesnt belong. If it can belong x% of the time, then I dont see why the PC (one of the people this story is about) can be one of the x%.
Saying no because allows the player to move on, redesign the character, or what have you. Maybe, here roll these dice to see, dangles the carrot in front of the player and encourages them to KEEP trying to derail your story so he can have another shot at that dice roll. And the fact that he COULD have 2 OTHER kinds of creatures that would be equally disruptive to the setting completely voids the setting issue. Now you are just being arbitrary (and yes I think random dice rolls to allow options is arbitrary and stupid).
As a DM, I believe in trying my hardest to give the player what he wants, within the bounds of balance. I'm unfamiliar with the allosaurus, but assuming it's not OP, I'd let him have it.
I'd probably have the party run across a traveling freakshow, one of the attractions being "From far off [wherever there are dinos in your campaign world]...the dreaded Death Lizard!"
I mean, part of the fun is seeing how you can work your players' desires into the campaign world you want to present them. I even ask my players before each new game if there are any magic items, plot points, etc. they'd be particularly interested in seeing come up in-game.
That's not to say you have to cave to every player's desire. If the allosaurus is OP, you have every right to say no.
The bigger deal, though, is if he wanted to play a class with an Allosaurus animal companion (as in, his character idea all along was to have that animal companion), then he picked the wrong class. Allosaurus isn't an option for Rangers (and it's not a reasonable substitute for any of the animals allowed for Rangers).
Either he didn't pay any attention when coming up with his character idea, and that sucks for him, so maybe you let him redesign or be lenient and say he can take his next level in Druid and you'll let the levels stack and apply to Allosaurus (even though they probably shouldn't).
Or, he knew that Allosaurus isn't allowed for Rangers and he wanted to go ahead and plead for his cool character idea anyway, in which case I'd simply say no and there wouldn't be any debate. That's gaming the system.
|
Dinosaurs are sort of like androids and black powder IMO...a little goes a long way. Unless you happen to be standing in one of the few select places in the world where they are, they are not a character option. It keeps them special and rare and awe inspiring.
I do agree that it is important to be consistent and clear in your ruling about viable AC choices for the ranger however. So either it is or is not a choice, and if there are limitations, you should make them clear and known. For instance, if you allow them for a ranger, but not in his region, then let him go and pay for an expedition to bring one back to him. Let him train it, pay for its expensive upkeep, and he will appreciate it all the more. It also will prevent him from throwing its life away carelessly, since it was expensive to acquire.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Solution.
He goes off alone.
He finds the allosaurus.
Except it is way above his pay grade, not friendly, and it eats him.
GG! Now what are you playing next?
The bigger deal, though, is if he wanted to play a class with an Allosaurus animal companion (as in, his character idea all along was to have that animal companion), then he picked the wrong class. Allosaurus isn't an option for Rangers (and it's not a reasonable substitute for any of the animals allowed for Rangers).
Either he didn't pay any attention when coming up with his character idea, and that sucks for him, so maybe you let him redesign or be lenient and say he can take his next level in Druid and you'll let the levels stack and apply to Allosaurus (even though they probably shouldn't).
Or, he knew that Allosaurus isn't allowed for Rangers and he wanted to go ahead and plead for his cool character idea anyway, in which case I'd simply say no and there wouldn't be any debate. That's gaming the system.
A compsognathus could be a nice substitute for something small and typical for a ranger.
I too hate gaming the system. "Can I pleeeeeease have it?"
...Rangers don't even have access to the allosaurus.
The Beastmaster archetype allows the Ranger to use the Druid list for animal companions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose there's a silver lining in knowing a character's motivation so specifically. I'd be curious how far Turok would go to get his lulosaurus pet. If you put the chance of finding the lizard between mission objectives, the interests of the party, and the goals of other party members there could be some good tension. If done well you could string it out for a long while and through tons of suffering, sacrifice, and tragedy.
At least that way it'd be more rewarding than the DM just spawning a dino within 1d4 miles of the PC as a peace offering. Once he gets it he'll probably either move on to another outlandish goal or just get bored and quit. Pity the warrior who slays all his foes.
Transparency can be used to a dms advantage.
I might allow it, but they would be working hard for this goal. It would be an epic quest and it would take a damn long time.
Yeah, gimme gimme the uber companion is not persuasive. Got to earn it with some hp, tears and rp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any advice on how to get past this without setting a tone with the rest of the group that whining and eye-rolling leads the gm to give you anything you want.
I don't really see what's wrong with just giving him an allosaurus if that's what makes him happy. I mean, if a stegosaurus and Tyrannosaurus are okay, why not just give him an allosaurus off a passing traveler?
The rules limiting animal companions for rangers are silly imo. They're vestigial. Besides, its about everyone having fun right? Does him getting an Allosaurus cause a problem of some sort I'm not aware of?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing I also forgot to put in. If you're going to be dipping Druid, that also means you have to honor the Druid vows regarding Armor...i.e. NO Metal.
Metal Armor (metal weapons are 100% okay) only affects Druid spells and Druid wild Shape. Please reread your book and try again, please.
Saying 'allosaurus isn't on your legal list, see?' and pointing it out should be sufficient.
He could be a beastmaster
Animal Companion (Ex): A beast master forms a close bond with an animal companion. This ability functions like the druid animal companion ability except that the ranger's effective druid level is equal to his ranger level – 3. The ranger gains a +2 bonus on wild empathy and Handle Animal checks made regarding his animal companion. Unlike a normal ranger, a beast master's choice of animal companion is not limited to a subset of all possibile animal companion choices—he may choose freely among all animal companion choices, just as a druid can.
He could be a beastmaster
Animal Companion (Ex): A beast master forms a close bond with an animal companion. This ability functions like the druid animal companion ability except that the ranger's effective druid level is equal to his ranger level – 3. The ranger gains a +2 bonus on wild empathy and Handle Animal checks made regarding his animal companion. Unlike a normal ranger, a beast master's choice of animal companion is not limited to a subset of all possibile animal companion choices—he may choose freely among all animal companion choices, just as a druid can.
Its an archetype that gives you what you should already have had in the first place. Yay?
Didn't the OP disappear?
He could be a beastmaster
Animal Companion (Ex): A beast master forms a close bond with an animal companion. This ability functions like the druid animal companion ability except that the ranger's effective druid level is equal to his ranger level – 3. The ranger gains a +2 bonus on wild empathy and Handle Animal checks made regarding his animal companion. Unlike a normal ranger, a beast master's choice of animal companion is not limited to a subset of all possibile animal companion choices—he may choose freely among all animal companion choices, just as a druid can.
Its an archetype that gives you what you should already have had in the first place. Yay?
Didn't the OP disappear?
after longgggggggggg debate I allowed him to get a BIG cat as an animal companion despite sm cat not big cat is on his ranger list. He wouldn't take a 1 level dip into druid, or explore the beastmaster sub-type. first session his big cat died and then refused anyone else from doing anything in the storyline until he had his 24 mourning ritual to get another 5 attack BIG CAT. I JUST LOST IT.... you can't have another big cat, or a dinosaur. I bent the rules just for you and now it's still not good enough. this is a group game and it doesn't revolve around your character. well, that was enough for him and he quit the group....over an animal companion!?!?!
well, that was enough for him and he quit the group....over an animal companion!?!?!
Well maybe from his point of view you gave him a toy he may not get again and in the first session took the thing away... Ouch.
He might also just be whiney. Who knows.