Rangers and Animal companions

[Velderan]

Personally, I have to say, I'm not in favor of much of an overhaul with the ranger. I think it's a great class as is in terms of getting abilities across levels and doing lots of things.

But one change I might propose is to give the ranger a companion equal to the druid rather than at half level. Animal companions don't usually end up being that great later in the game unless you have druid spells to enhance them, and, as is, a lot of rangers don't even bother using their companions because they are probably just going to die.

A variation on this might be to give a ranger a bonus to racially appropriate animal companions, much like the gnome ranger subsitution levels we saw before.

What do you guys think?

[nightflier]

Well, I've already stated my opinion: I think that ranger should have more than one animal companion - 3, to be exact. At levels 4, 8 and 12. Or perhaps make a choice to have only one companion - but a more powerful one, like druid's.

[Velderan]

that's not a bad idea, as long as there's a choice. Plus it'd set them apart from the druid.

[nightflier]

The idea is that ranger should be distinctive, not watered-down fighter or druid, or some weak combination of those two classes. And why in Nine Hells d8 for hp?

[Velderan]

nightflier wrote:

The idea is that ranger should be distinctive, not watered-down fighter or druid, or some weak combination of those two classes. And why in Nine Hells d8 for hp?

I dunno about that. Actually, I think they are supposed to be a combination of fighter, rogue and druid, but I don't find find it to be a weak one. The d8 thing, kinda makes sense to me. They aren't hardline soldiers like fighters and barbarians. It doesn't matter, I'm fairly certain they're changing it with alpha 3

[mrrtn]

Velderan wrote:

nightflier wrote:

The idea is that ranger should be distinctive, not watered-down fighter or druid, or some weak combination of those two classes. And why in Nine Hells d8 for hp?

I dunno about that. Actually, I think they are supposed to be a combination of fighter, rogue and druid, but I don't find find it to be a weak one. The d8 thing, kinda makes sense to me. They aren't hardline soldiers like fighters and barbarians. It doesn't matter, I'm fairly certain they're changing it with alpha 3

I guess it is to balance out the extra skill point and extra saves. It tells you: this is not a fighter or barbarian, use stealth, traps or ranged attacks to survive!

I agree with this thread though, gaining a watered-down animal companion at lvl4 is absolutely rubbish! The only reason I can think of why I should get one is to use its scent-ability to track or its fly ability to scout. Never for combat, because at that level animal companions are hopeless and die. Definitely some tweaking needed here, I like the idea of making the companion more powerful. Perhaps choosing a path between more magic or more powerful animal companion is the way to go to keep things balanced.

[The Dark Hunter]

My thought is this, Rangers should have a companion that is just a tough and versitile as they are. Why take a companion that can't really take care of themselves or their buddy when he is in danger. The companion should be able to progress in abilities and skills through experience just like the Ranger. The two together would learn to work together king of like other pack animals do. By having a Ranger only be able to have an animal that is half as good as a druids is kind of limiting the Ranger. In real life people who hunt bears with dogs wouldn't pick a dog that was half as good at hunting and dealing with bears as one that was trained and had experienced dealing and adapting with these types of situations. Again just my thoughts.