Are there seriously alot of people who like the 3.5 way of doing animal companions? I, personally, think that making animal companions the same as familiars(more or less) was a great flaw in the 3.5 rules and had hoped that paizo would have revised them. I think it was much better when druids could be followed by a little army of animals(although I know from other commander concepts that this isn't exactly a good way to do things... the more participants controlled by a single character, the less likely it is that other characters will get to act). Maybe an either/or option for the second form of nature bond? maybe a understanding that the one or two animals that follow the druid around are merely the "generals" of his furry army?
I prefer the 3.5 way of doing things.
I think the leadership feat(and any other "horde of things" concepts, such as the nature general, or the necromancer) should be handled as such: You have a small number of "elite" troops that follow you arround and act at your initiative roll but with their own modifier(itself modified by a penalty equal to the disparity between your level and theirs, min. 2, as the cohort level min.), only acting before you if they have standing orders. This allows other characters(ie, you roll a 14, your mod is +1 and your cohort's mod is +4(+2 after the leadership mod.), your cohort goes a turn before you IF he has standing orders, such as "attack things with obviously hostile intentions towards us", if he doesn't, he acts at your initiative, just after you, but not actually on your turn, and you have to give him orders before he can act) this way other characters have more of a chance to act, but your concept isn't worthless. You can also use your Horde of Things ability to muster a standing armour when the occasion calls for it which will include peon troops, generals, seargents, etc. which will accomplish lesser goals that are still important while you, your bodyguard, and your party go on to confront/tackle the larger, more important, and more glorious challenge.
For example, the Necromancer has "Undead Horde" as his HoT ability, he is usually followed by a number of elite units no greater than his cha, with a CR no greater than his level minus 2, so let's say he's fifth level and has an 18 cha. He is usually followed by four Ghasts, which act with a +1 cha bonus, compared to his +3(X), so he acts, then there's Init X-1, then his ghouls act at Init X-2, then combat goes on from Init X-3. Later in the campaign, when the BBEG rises up with his little peon army which attacks a kingdom, but remains safely ensconced in his tower. The Necromancer musters up an army of skeletons, zombies, ghouls, and maybe some low level vamps as generals. The army and three of his ghasts go out to aid the kingdom's army in fighting off the nameless hordes of King Daxall, while the Necromancer, his Ghast bodyguard named Fred, and his party infiltrate King Daxall's Tower and seek him out for a personal confrontation.
Example 2: The Druid and her Horde of Nature. She is level 10 and has Cha 22 before items because she's a human who chose to make her bonus to cha and invested her stat boosts into it to have a better personal guard. So this Druid is followed around by 6 CR8 or less "natural" creatures, let's say it's a Gargantuan Monstrous Spider(Init Mod +1 after HoT mod) with a Howdah on it's back, and a family of 5 Dire Tigers(Init Mod +0 after HoT mod). So she runs around with a +5 Init mod(maybe she took Imp. Init.), and acts at Init (Roll)+5(Y), her Tigers act at Init Y-5, a turn after her spider at Init Y-4. When King Daxall sends his standing army of goblins or whatever at the Good Kingdom she muster her little Nature Army full of CR7 and lower natural critters, plus 5 of her personal guard(probably the tigers) to help out the Good Army, while she takes her 6th personal guard(likely her spider, as it has no Int. score and can't really act under standing orders) and she and her party bust into King Daxall's tower to kick Big Bad Evil Ass.
Druid: Since I'm here, you want to ask any of your other animals, like the sheep over there?
Farmer: No! The sheep lies!!!
I just spit Coke all over my computer.
Ummmm...I can't even think of anything to say...wow.
Fizz
|
With your example of 12 creatures, the druid's player will be making about 80% of a 4-member party's actions in combat and drastically reducing the amount of time available to other players. This wouldn't be at all fun for anyone but the Druid.
That's assuming that the Fighter and the Rogue don't have the Leadership Feat, and thus have a mercenary band and a thieves' guild at their beck and call, and that the Necromancer hasn't raised his allotment of, what, 10th level, so 40 HD of undead. The Necromancer doesn't even need a Feat to hog his share of the glory; the Druid in the above example would.
Of course, a party of, what? over 50 individual entities runs into its own problems. But that's a problem with the 10th level game being effectively the same as the 1st level game, just with more kewl stuff.
Personally. I have never had a problem with my animal companion. I'm a brb/Drd mix, and took the natural Bond feat from Complete Adventurer, so basically I have a loyal mount i can ride into battle. :-D
I have played a beast master before, (also complete Adventurer) and i have to say having more than one animal companion can get really daunting and bog down game play, even if you have them all go at the same time, it gets boring after a while to have the rest of the team sit and wait while your six wolves all attack the goblin at once.
This is why I have the animals acting, usually, on their own initiative, hell, they could even be put, mostly, at the very end of the party's actions, maybe give the leader one or two to control on their turn, but then everyone else gets a go before the horde rips the enemy apart.
also, example with 12? I used two different examples, one with 4 and the other with 6, so I don't know where the 12 comes from.
I've never liked 3.5's Furry Superfriend, but in most games the Menagerie was a bit disruptive. I think a good compromise would be be to allow the Animal Domain power to summon additional creatures every X levels.
There is a problem
This spell summons a natural creature. It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions.
A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities. Creatures cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support them.
The spell conjures one of the creatures from the 1st-level list on the accompanying Summon Nature’s Ally table. You choose which kind of creature to summon, and you can change that choice each time you cast the spell. All the creatures on the table are neutral unless otherwise noted.
What means communicating with an animal? Handle animal? Speak with animals spell?
Druid's animal companion is fine, but I think that the ranger is slighted. The ranger should have more companions, like one at lvl 4, second at level 8 and third at level 12.
AH old school approach I kinda miss that as well
I guess thats why I love paizo so much. It's modren but has a feel thats harkens back to the older stuff
Well for mine home ranger I added more styles,favored terrain and skirmish. Adding back multiple companions wouldn't be an issue as long as they do not level with you.
|
I was thinking more like more powerful companions at higher levels. For instance, wolf at lvl 4, dire badger al lvl 8 and polar bear at level 12. That can be balanced by removing ranger's spellcasting ability. Or, there could be choice at first level - companions or spellcasting. But in that case, ranger should be more powerful caster if he decides to go with that option.
humm how about multiple companions or a domain like the druid?
I think the druid companion is fine, but I do not see the utility or usefulness of the ranger companion. I'd prefer the ranger to have an alternate ability, such as a limited form of wild shape, and be done with the companion issue for rangers.
Especially when you have a ranger and druid in group both with companions, it is rather funny, in a way.
|
|
I'm sorry, but my view of ranger is heavily influenced by 2nd. Ed. and movies like Beastmaster. I know a lot of both players and GM's who share my opinion. In fact, when the 3.0 presented new druid, I was very opposed to animal companion for that class. Druid has a wildshape - that's an iconic ability of the druids. Original ranger was nature's paladin and companions were to ranger what special mount and holy defenders are to paladin. I think that Paizo should do something to rectify injustice done to ranger class. Once again, if you want to deal a lot of damage by archery, you can achieve that with high-dexterity fighter a lot easier and faster than with ranger. Ranger class has to have a distinctive feel to it.
Seeker, I like your idea 'bout domains.
Personally, I'm a big fan of the superpet. In our self-insert game, I built my character around it. I think a lot of my players (or maybe just myself) would be seriously pissed if they got rid of it. That being said, it seems like a lot of people want the 'menagerie' effect, so an option for a permenant menagerie should probably be included. Wouldn't it be easiest just to expand the animal domain ability a little bit to allow for multiple, lower level creatures?
Hey, I'm going around to all the Druid threads. I've made a thread to address the old power and balance issues of the class and what I've picked up over the years as being problems with having a class try to satisfy such a variety of play types.
"Constructive Druid fix thread"
I do not have a problem with the concept of Animal Companion and Familiar working roughly the same way. They are basically the same thing...an animal that has bonded with a spellcaster. In fact, I would like to see that go one step further.
What I mean by this is I would like to see wizards have the option of either waiting until a later level to acquire their familiar or dismiss a current one the same way a druid can. In exchange for waiting until later level or dismissing a current familiar, they could acquire a inherently more powerful familiar just as the druid can with animal companions, but at the expense of a lower effective level for the bond benefits.
This would allow wizards to acuire familiars such as quasits, imps, mephits, small elementals, pseudo-dragons and such without requiring the feat Improved Familiar. If a druid does not have to burn a feat to gain a more powerful animal companion then neither should a wizard to acquire a more powerful familiar.
The same option should be extended to paladins and their mounts. If a dwarven paladin wants to wait a few levels to acquire his mount so he can get a dire boar instead of a warpony he should be able to. And it adds fantastic color.
-Weylin Stormcrowe