The animal companion advancing at half ranger level always seemed to fall behind in what it could do. Has anyone looked into changing it to something with a straight minus to druid level for determining animal companion abilities, like the hexblades familiar.
It starts out behind and never catches up, nor does it provide any bonuses like a familiar does, making it virtually useless.
Not only is it useless, but it leads to the ridiculous renaming trend unimaginative yet hopeful players seem to fall prey to, (Sophie, Sophie II, Sophie III, Sophie IV, Sophie V, etc.) as if renaming it the same name 2-4 times is going to increase its luck or chance of survivability.
This is covered in a few other posts, I think.
EDIT: Yup, under 'General Discussion'.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/feedback/alpha3/general/rangersAnimalCompanion
The animal companion advancing at half ranger level always seemed to fall behind in what it could do. Has anyone looked into changing it to something with a straight minus to druid level for determining animal companion abilities, like the hexblades familiar.
Totally agreed! The ranger's animal companion actually gets WORSE (relative to the rest of the party) as the ranger goes up in level. That's boneheaded. No class ability should *deteriorate* as you progress in levels. By 20th level, the ranger's companion is just going to die all the time.
Our house rules involve keeping the ranger's companion at a druid level -2. I was honestly surprised to find this change hadn't been made in the new Paizo ruleset.
I totally agree, and it has been the one thing about the Ranger class that has always made me angry. Usually I just took the option of not having the animal companion in favor of a trade out or just never taking it. I broached a similar solution to my DM, asking if I could make it Druid -3 and even offered to give up spellcasting and he said no because it would be "unbalanced" and because the beta rules said 1/2 level. It just seems unfair to the class.
I totally agree, and it has been the one thing about the Ranger class that has always made me angry. Usually I just took the option of not having the animal companion in favor of a trade out or just never taking it. I broached a similar solution to my DM, asking if I could make it Druid -3 and even offered to give up spellcasting and he said no because it would be "unbalanced" and because the beta rules said 1/2 level. It just seems unfair to the class.
Dont we have the option of not taking an animal companion with the hunters bond class feature?
I think the intention of something like a hawk or falcon or riding horse is more along the lines of the intent.
Kinda like the beast masters ferrets, they didnt help in combat, they snuck around for him.
I almost always have a falcon (hawk) it just scouts for me.
An urban ranger maybe like a dire rat... or a dog.
not a melee combatant even when he first gets it.
You could also have that horse that is always just over the next hill and you whistle for him...but hes not a combatant.
I see the ranger animal companion more like aragorns horse, he rides it around in battle, but it doesnt take out any goblins, and when he was down to his last hit point, the horse found him and took him to helms deep.