After playtesting in a group with two rangers, it has come to my realization that the ranger pet just can't compete with anything. One character has a hawk animal companion and the other has a wolf companion. The hawk usually uses Flyby Attack and Spring Attack to hit once and keep going without dying, but the poor ranger with a wolf routinely has his pet knocked into the negatives.
Fighting against a fighter NPC (level 10), the wolf of a level 10 ranger got put down from a single full attack. The time before that, it was from a troll. A troll!
While I'm completely for making the fighter NOT outclassed by another class's class feature, the poor ranger gets the shaft with this. I'd recommend giving the ranger a pet that progresses at the same rate as the druid's.
After playtesting in a group with two rangers, it has come to my realization that the ranger pet just can't compete with anything. One character has a hawk animal companion and the other has a wolf companion. The hawk usually uses Flyby Attack and Spring Attack to hit once and keep going without dying, but the poor ranger with a wolf routinely has his pet knocked into the negatives.
Fighting against a fighter NPC (level 10), the wolf of a level 10 ranger got put down from a single full attack. The time before that, it was from a troll. A troll!
While I'm completely for making the fighter NOT outclassed by another class's class feature, the poor ranger gets the shaft with this. I'd recommend giving the ranger a pet that progresses at the same rate as the druid's.
While I agree with parts of this I would suggest making the Ranger's pet catch up with Druid's by higher levels. A druid having a stronger pet at low levels is important because he needs it before shapeshifting and spellcasting becomes useful.
Also I bet this wolf was a pet of a ranged Ranger?
If it was a melee Ranger, the pet would be much more useful since the Ranger would draw aggro and the pet could give the Ranger flanking bonuses.
Ranged Rangers avoid taking damage and have more options in combat then melee ones so it is only fair their pet is less useful.
|
I think the first thing that needs to be decided is whether the ranger's Animal Companion (and to a lesser extent the druid's) is primarily flavor, or if it's intended as a (potentially) serious combat feature of the class(es).
If it's primarily flavor, that's fine. It should probably be spelled out explicitly, with some suggestions on how to get real use out of the companion (scout, mount, fly-by attacker, whatever) and some warnings about putting the animal in harm's way.
If it's intended to be a legitimate combat feature, I think one very good starting place is having Share Spells work to 30 feet. An animal companion that has to stay within 5 feet of its master to maintain its buffs isn't even able to flank!
.....
While I'm completely for making the fighter NOT outclassed by another class's class feature, the poor ranger gets the shaft with this. I'd recommend giving the ranger a pet that progresses at the same rate as the druid's.
I've seen the same problem with my ranger in a 3,5e campaign that my jaguar can't do more than dive in and out without getting smashed. I like the idea of synching the progression with the druid. at low levels the druid is not that far behind the ranger combatwise anyway and we know that the druid is one of the 'better' high-level options anyway.
one thing we need to be careful about though is that the animal companion is supposed to be an assistant, not a meat shield or sacrifical decoy...
I think the first thing that needs to be decided is whether the ranger's Animal Companion (and to a lesser extent the druid's) is primarily flavor, or if it's intended as a (potentially) serious combat feature of the class(es).
Agree. I always saw it as flavor but I understand if people were expecting more than this.
If you want a pet for flavor, seriously just buy a dog or other animal with your starting cash. Class features need to be useful, not just flavor. And trained animal doesn't require a class feature, you can accomplish that with Handle Animal and a pittance of cash.I think the first thing that needs to be decided is whether the ranger's Animal Companion (and to a lesser extent the druid's) is primarily flavor, or if it's intended as a (potentially) serious combat feature of the class(es).Agree. I always saw it as flavor but I understand if people were expecting more than this.
I'm not trying to instigate anything, I think we just need to define what "useful" is. To some, it may be combat, to others it may be something else. The companion animal also has senses that the Ranger might not have.
|
I played a 3.0/3.5 ranger from 1st to 8th level, and I found at the low-levels, when the ranger first gets the pet (a wolf, in my case), it does just fine as a contributing member of the group, with flanks and trip attacks. However, as the ranger levelled up, the animal companion becomes less relevant.
I'd recommend adding a ranger and/or druid spell that buffs the animal companion. That may be worthwhile...
I tend to agree here. Rangers are great, but allowing them a full or less cramped progression on animal companion would not necessarily be game-breaking.
In my experience, a ranger given the choice between animal companion and some variant class feature almost always chooses that feature and even the biggest ranger fans (not to be confused with fans of NY's hockey team) wound up changing to some Prc in 3.5.
I would like to see the end of that practice and the embracing of the natural roots (not sure whether any pun is intended there) of the ranger with a buffed animal companion or some sort of available variant that compensates for the often lackluster functionality of the Animal companion.
|
As I said here yesterday, I also want the animal companion buffed. Level-2 and then Level-0 if you restrict to one type of animal (like the option in the Campaign Guide except for achieving parity with Druid for doing it) or even level-parity with the Druid would be fine by me.
I will use it as a house rule in any case, but I think that the actual game rules should fix it, too. Rangers won't be overpowered as a result, either, and it makes narrative sense (why on earth would someone that liked animals take a level/2 companion around when they get cut to pieces all the time?).
It would be nice if animal companions were removed entirely as a class ability for both classes, and then reintroduced as possible cohorts that only rangers and druids have access to and then both could take an animal companion cohort equal in power.
But that would probably hurt backwards compatibility.
I also think that the druid's animal companion is too good as is and that the ranger's animal companion is too weak.
You know what really confuses me about that stance? Druid without AC >> Ranger. Druids are full casters, they shouldn't get nicer versions of otherwise identical features than non-casters. Anything less than parity with the druid for AC is an insult to the Ranger class.
I agree with the furry rodent here except I think parity should be achieved in a different way. Personally I would like to see the AC nerfed down to an assistant the way the ranger's AC is. So Ranger's AC progression would equal the druids progression but both would be significantly less powerful than the druids current companion.
The reason is simply because the animal companion should be just that, a companion or helper, not a primary melee combatant. A companion should guard the ranger/ druids back help flank or prevent the character from getting flanked.
I suppose I should clarify that whatever the final power level is, the Druid and the Ranger should have the same one. It doesn't need to be at the Druid's current level of awesomeness.
If used car salesman made adverts for character classes:
"Buy this wonderful druid class today and we'll throw in a free Animal Companion. Guaranteed to be flea free and ready to replace that irksome fighter in your group."
Oh... actually sure, I agree that there is no reason the ranger's companion shouldn't be as good as the druids, it would just be better if they were both set about the level of the rangers AC.
Just throwing in my two cents:
Give the ranger an equal Animal companion.
Also, include an alternate for both Rangers and Druids who don't want pets, like the Paladin and Wizard get now. Pets slow the game down if you're not interested in them, but you might take them anyway not to lose out on a class ability. This has been fixed everywhere else, why not here?
Also, include an alternate for both Rangers and Druids who don't want pets
There are alternates for both the ranger and the druid.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I suppose I should clarify that whatever the final power level is, the Druid and the Ranger should have the same one. It doesn't need to be at the Druid's current level of awesomeness.If used car salesman made adverts for character classes:
"Buy this wonderful druid class today and we'll throw in a free Animal Companion. Guaranteed to be flea free and ready to replace that irksome fighter in your group."
Oh... actually sure, I agree that there is no reason the ranger's companion shouldn't be as good as the druids, it would just be better if they were both set about the level of the rangers AC.
I think I could get behind this idea - to have both the ranger's AC and the druid's AC be at half-level. If they really want a vicious animal comp, they can take Leadership and get a neato animal or magical beast or awakened animal cohort.
As an interesting side note, could druids and rangers who take Leadership perhaps get animal FOLLOWERS? Instead of human commoners, experts, etc.?
Could be fun.
Also, include an alternate for both Rangers and Druids who don't want petsThere are alternates for both the ranger and the druid.
Yes. So there are. :/
I've always been an advocate of allowing Rangers to get an Animal Companion as if they were a Druid three levels lower then their Ranger class level. That way their companions are more effective and Druids still get to take pride in having the best Animal Companion - assuming we'll still be going that route, of course...
As an interesting side note, could druids and rangers who take Leadership perhaps get animal FOLLOWERS? Instead of human commoners, experts, etc.?
I seem to recall that under AD&D the different classes attracted different sorts of followers and Druids and Rangers did indeed attract animal, magical animal, fey, etc cohorts.
|
|
I would generally find that giving the ranger an animal companion equal to the druid is the simple and most effective solution. Ranger animal companions simply can't contribute nearing 10th level. The ranger I had in the party for Savage Tide quickly lost her original companion to Xerkamat. Before going off to Scuttlecove I decided to have the local shaman bequeathe an animal companion (a dinosaur of course! raptor or deinoychus) to her and thus she gain an animal companion that progressed as the druid. It didn't overpower but was still able to meaninfully contribute to combats.
So I'd go suggest the simple fix perhaps with only the provisio that the ranger gets the Animal Companion feature at a later level.
Maybe the ranger's effective druid level should be -3. This would keep with the Paladin's turn undead.
If the cleric is full caster with turn undead since level 1, and IF the Paladin is the "warrior of the cleric", with four spell leves, unique powers and turn undead as a cleric 3 levels lower...
...it makes sense to me thar if the druid is a full caster with animal companion since level 1, and IF the ranger is the "warrior of the druid", with four spells levels and unique powers, his AC should be as a druid 3 levels lower...
As someone mentioned, this would make a better companion and still leave the druid (with the "stronger natural connection") with the stronger meat sh, ahem, I mean, companion, just as the cleric has better energy channeling than the paladin (because he have "stronger divine connection?").
Lizard thoughts...
I seem to recall that under AD&D the different classes attracted different sorts of followers and Druids and Rangers did indeed attract animal, magical animal, fey, etc cohorts.
Man, those tables were awesome! If you rolled well - there were two rangers in one of games years ago. The guy who rolled the pixie and the bear was a *LOT* happier than the guy who rolled the squirrel (or whatever it was - I forget).
Re: Leadership, we've house ruled that you can use it to take non-human followers and cohorts. For some PCs it just makes more sense and we've never had any problem with it. However, it doesn't solve the ranger issue really - then they'll have to invest in a decent charisma score also and use a feat.
I think druid level -3 is probably best, a lot better than now and, as posted above, brings it in line with the Paladin's turning ability.
Peace,
tfad
|
|
In my campaign we got to level twelve, I had the rangers animal companion blessed by a god of nature and from there on progressed as ranger level = Druid level, this didn't unbalance the ranger in fact it helped at those higher levels to help keep the ranger in line with the spellcasters since he had his kick ass viper as basically a second character. But either of the fighters coulda killed in two rounds with minor wounds so I think that it should just be the equal to the druid. or if anything else the druid and ranger should switch and the ranger gets the good animal companion while the druid gets the assistant. Not like the druid is going to suffer any
|
|
Maybe the ranger's effective druid level should be -3.
A little bit off the subject, but i think the ranger and paladin should be at -3 levels for all "ancillary" class features. Caster level? -3 levels. (Did you know it's impossible to be 1st caster level as a paladin or ranger?) Channel Energy? -3 levels. Animal Companion? -3 levels.
Uniformity isn't the end-all be-all of rules, but when it can be achieved with no downside, it's a damned good thing.
--Jeff
...since he had his kick ass viper as basically a second character.
This is what I think should be avoided in Animal Companions/ Familiars. ACs should be there as assistants to the PCs, not viable second characters on the battlemat. This is particularly problematic with larger groups where there are 6+ PCs, 3-4 familiars, half dozen summoned creatures...
I'm good with the Ranger's AC being comparable to the Druids, provided the druids AC is nerfed down to being significantly less that a second character. ACs can still be useful for AID another, flanking, a second set of eyes on watch, plus whatever utility roles they might serve.
I agree with people wanting to up the power of the ranger pet for a few reasons:
-First of all, the existing companion becomes completely useless after about level 5. It can't damage the enemy at all, nor does it provide any kind of utility compared to other classes (a wizard has a pet with more HP and human int). I suppose a mounted ranger would be alright.
-Second of all, I don't see it causing any kind of balance issue as, without spells, a full animal companion still isn't very strong. A druid pet is 'as good' as a fighter because they can buff it to hell.
-Third of all, it sounds like an overwhelming majority of people posting are in favor of giving it full progression. While I'm aware game design isn't a democracy, I can't think of a reason to ignore the players on this one.
On a sidenote, I strongly disagree with the people who want to nerf the druid AC. Many druid players are attached the feature as it currently exists, and, speaking from personal experience, some people enjoy the possibility of creating pet-based characters. In order to make the pet powerful, you have to buff it quite a bit, which means that you are wasting the opportunity to memorize or use better spells, so why shouldn't it be a strong feature. Druids already had their most troublesome class feature, wild shape, fixed, I really don't see AC being much of a problem. Besides, it would seriously hinder backwards compatibility.
I like Monte's idea where the animal companion of a ranger shares his favored enemy bonuses (i.e. if you have +2 vs. orcs so does your wolf). In Pathfinder this would also be extended to favored terrain bonuses.
This gives a ranger's animal companion unique flavor in contrast to the druid's animal companion.
Since Monte's on board as an advisor I'm very interested in how much of his stuff will make its way into Pathfinder. Spell Compendium isn't OGL but The Complete Book of Eldritch Might and all of its spells are.
Since we're assuming backwards compatibility with the existing supplements, why is this a big deal?
Most Ranger players I know that make frequent use of their animal companion in combat simply take the feat Natural Bond after gaining their companion. Those that like buffing themselves and their pets simply take Practiced Spellcaster, and are fine. Honestly, this is a non-issue from my perspective and I've run countless sessions and campaigns with animal companions proving themselves quite viable through adventures as high as 18th level.
I'm not trying to rain on anyone's suggestions, but this really is an issue that makes me scratch my head, as it's never been a problem in my experience.
I will say though, I do like that idea of Favored Enemy sharing with the companion an excellent idea!
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I like Monte's idea where the animal companion of a ranger shares his favored enemy bonuses (i.e. if you have +2 vs. orcs so does your wolf). In Pathfinder this would also be extended to favored terrain bonuses.
This gives a ranger's animal companion unique flavor in contrast to the druid's animal companion.
Since Monte's on board as an advisor I'm very interested in how much of his stuff will make its way into Pathfinder. Spell Compendium isn't OGL but The Complete Book of Eldritch Might and all of its spells are.
I think that's an excellent idea. I think I had something like that available as a ranger feat in my last campaign, though no one actually took it, but just making it an inherent part of the AC would be fine by me.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Oh, just let Jason loose with the animal companion rules for ten seconds and the next thing you know they'll be out of Pathfinder entirely. You broke Psionics, Jason! You broke them!I suppose I should clarify that whatever the final power level is, the Druid and the Ranger should have the same one. It doesn't need to be at the Druid's current level of awesomeness.If used car salesman made adverts for character classes:
"Buy this wonderful druid class today and we'll throw in a free Animal Companion. Guaranteed to be flea free and ready to replace that irksome fighter in your group."
Oh... actually sure, I agree that there is no reason the ranger's companion shouldn't be as good as the druids, it would just be better if they were both set about the level of the rangers AC.
I think I could get behind this idea - to have both the ranger's AC and the druid's AC be at half-level. If they really want a vicious animal comp, they can take Leadership and get a neato animal or magical beast or awakened animal cohort.
As an interesting side note, could druids and rangers who take Leadership perhaps get animal FOLLOWERS? Instead of human commoners, experts, etc.?
Could be fun.
Only a little...
Actually, I was going to post some of the animal companions that I had for Boubacar when she was rebooted post the psionics ban as a druid/vermin keeper. But now I can't find em! Alas, they were pretty hardcore cheaters. One was a huge monstrous scorpion, one an advanced large giant ant, and one was a leechwalker (hey, it's a vermin!). They were pretty boss in combat, that's for sure.
I like Monte's idea where the animal companion of a ranger shares his favored enemy bonuses (i.e. if you have +2 vs. orcs so does your wolf). In Pathfinder this would also be extended to favored terrain bonuses.
This gives a ranger's animal companion unique flavor in contrast to the druid's animal companion.
Since Monte's on board as an advisor I'm very interested in how much of his stuff will make its way into Pathfinder. Spell Compendium isn't OGL but The Complete Book of Eldritch Might and all of its spells are.
That's an ok fix, but it's really not enough. In the pathfinder campaign I'm currently running, the ranger's pets die constantly, and we're using beta. I don't see how sharing favored terrain will help.
Only a little...Actually, I was going to post some of the animal companions that I had for Boubacar when she was rebooted post the psionics ban as a druid/vermin keeper. But now I can't find em! Alas, they were pretty hardcore cheaters. One was a huge monstrous scorpion, one an advanced large giant ant, and one was a leechwalker (hey, it's a vermin!). They were pretty boss in combat, that's for sure.
Wait, I'm confused, are you saying the existing AC should be half the current level because you broke it? Because, that's really unfair to the players who don't break it. Just because something can be broken, doesn't mean it needs to be nerfed when the vast majority of players won't break it.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Wait, I'm confused, are you saying the existing AC should be half the current level because you broke it? Because, that's really unfair to the players who don't break it. Just because something can be broken, doesn't mean it needs to be nerfed when the vast majority of players won't break it.
Only a little...Actually, I was going to post some of the animal companions that I had for Boubacar when she was rebooted post the psionics ban as a druid/vermin keeper. But now I can't find em! Alas, they were pretty hardcore cheaters. One was a huge monstrous scorpion, one an advanced large giant ant, and one was a leechwalker (hey, it's a vermin!). They were pretty boss in combat, that's for sure.
Nope, I was just sharing a joke with a guy I used to game with but who has since moved to another country about a character in a game we used to play in together.
BUT, I would say that you point out a bit of a false dichotomy between "can" and "won't." I'm not as hardcore in this principle as some of the other folks are, but I it is nevertheless true: Part of the point of the group playtest here is to deal with changes we might want to make in the rules. In real, actual gameplay, some things would rarely if ever come up (like a PC wizard trying to earn infinite gold by casting wall of iron and selling it), that is not a reason to leave known and open holes in the rules.
We are playtesting the system so that the final result will be as good as it can be, and as free of dumb loopholes as it can be. Even with my trademarked Rule -1 in place (i.e., don't be a jerk), you don't want DMs and players out there having to deal with stupid arguments about stupid loopholes when we, right here, right now, with this playtest, have the opportunity to spot them and fix them.
As for the animal companions, my use of the word "cheating" is a euphemism for selecting an optimal use of an ability that is really really powerful, not that it was a literal 'cheat.' I assure you, it was all entirely legal, and involved one core class (druid) and one prestige class (vermin keeper), the relevant point of which was to enable me to use animal-related druid abilities with vermin; in this case, to have vermin animal companions (and to cast animal spells on vermin). Really, though, I don't know that those vermin where any more awesome than just regular old animal companions I could've gotten.
No, the relevant point is that a druid's animal companion is at least about as tough as a fighter cohort, and depending on the specific creature chosen and the druid's ability to buff it at a relatively low cost (since the druid can get 2-for-1 buffs on himself shared with the cohort), arguably as good as or even better than a fighter PC.
As a free class ability, that seems to me and to some other folks as being too good, given all of the rest of the things a druid can do. For an animal ally that good, I think it would be better for the druid (or ranger) to spend a feat and take Leadership.
Nope, I was just sharing a joke with a guy I used to game with but who has since moved to another country about a character in a game we used to play in together.BUT, I would say that you point out a bit of a false dichotomy between "can" and "won't." I'm not as hardcore in this principle as some of the other folks are, but I it is nevertheless true: Part of the point of the group playtest here is to deal with changes we might want to make in the rules. In real, actual gameplay, some things would rarely if ever come up (like a PC wizard trying to earn infinite gold by casting wall of iron and selling it), that is not a reason to leave known and open holes in the rules.
We are playtesting the system so that the final result will be as good as it can be, and as free of dumb loopholes as it can be. Even with my trademarked Rule -1 in place (i.e., don't be a jerk), you don't want DMs and players out there having to deal with stupid arguments about stupid loopholes when we, right here, right now, with this playtest, have the opportunity to spot them and fix them.
As for the animal companions, my use of the word "cheating" is a euphemism for selecting an optimal use of an ability that is really really powerful, not that it was...
Oh, then I'm retarded.
Anyway, my point regarding the animal companion is that I don't understand why a couple of you are saying it's at least as good as a fighter cohort. Taken without spells, a 12-14 HD animal is complete crap compared to a 20th level fighter. (And, of course, I'm just talking endgame, but they stay significantly behind the fighter over the course of 20 levels). Yes, spells can make the animal companion much better, but the druid has to use spells, and spend rounds casting those spells, not to mention the fact that animals are somewhat unpredictable. And, the fighter can be buffed as well, so I'm not sure spells really count much towards power balance. Really, in the game I've been running (and previous games) I've never heard anyone complain about the animal companion even remotely overpowering the druid.
If you did halve the animal companion progression, as you say, effectively making it useless (really, that's not worth arguing, this whole thread is filled with people who've found half progression useless) you're kind of limiting options for players who really do like playing pet based characters (and AC is extremely popular in my game, even for rangers).
-First of all, the existing companion becomes completely useless after about level 5. It can't damage the enemy at all, nor does it provide any kind of utility compared to other classes (a wizard has a pet with more HP and human int). I suppose a mounted ranger would be alright.
The animal companion should not be equivalent to a free extra attack per round. AC is supposed to be a companion, an extra set of eyes, a flank/ aid another buddy, and a sometimes scout... not an extra combatant in the game which is a serious threat in combat.
-Third of all, it sounds like an overwhelming majority of people posting are in favor of giving it full progression. While I'm aware game design isn't a democracy, I can't think of a reason to ignore the players on this one.
Good thing.
On a sidenote, I strongly disagree with the people who want to nerf the druid AC. Many druid players are attached the feature as it currently exists, and, speaking from personal experience, some people enjoy the possibility of creating pet-based characters. In order to make the pet powerful, you have to buff it quite a bit, which means that you are wasting the opportunity to memorize or use better spells, so why shouldn't it be a strong feature. Druids already had their most troublesome class feature, wild shape, fixed, I really don't see AC being much of a problem. Besides, it would seriously hinder backwards compatibility.
Well many many people disagree with you here. A druid is perfectly capable of both buffing the AC enough to make it a significant threat and casting additional spells. They can also load up their AC with magic items making them an even bigger threat. The druid class is quite powerful enough without having a deadly melee specialist to control on an ongoing basis.
As for backwards compatibility... nerfing the druid's AC is no more or less backwards compatible than buffing the rangers AC. If the druid is to be a dedicated 'pet based' class then it should lose a significant number of it's other class abilities.
As it is right now the druid is a pet based class, a full caster class, a shifter, and a decent martial character... even after the Wildshape Nerf. I would suggest a possible solution would be to give the druid a choice of either Wild Shape or the AC. Even then the druid is still a reasonable class, then you have the choice of shifter+full caster or 'pet based class'+full caster.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Oh, then I'm retarded.
Nope, I was just sharing a joke with a guy I used to game with but who has since moved to another country about a character in a game we used to play in together.BUT, I would say that you point out a bit of a false dichotomy between "can" and "won't." I'm not as hardcore in this principle as some of the other folks are, but I it is nevertheless true: Part of the point of the group playtest here is to deal with changes we might want to make in the rules. In real, actual gameplay, some things would rarely if ever come up (like a PC wizard trying to earn infinite gold by casting wall of iron and selling it), that is not a reason to leave known and open holes in the rules.
We are playtesting the system so that the final result will be as good as it can be, and as free of dumb loopholes as it can be. Even with my trademarked Rule -1 in place (i.e., don't be a jerk), you don't want DMs and players out there having to deal with stupid arguments about stupid loopholes when we, right here, right now, with this playtest, have the opportunity to spot them and fix them.
As for the animal companions, my use of the word "cheating" is a euphemism for selecting an optimal use of an ability that is really really powerful, not that it was...
Ummm... if you say so. Not sure what to make of this.
Anyway, my point regarding the animal companion is that I don't understand why a couple of you are saying it's at least as good as a fighter cohort. Taken without spells, a 12-14 HD animal is complete crap compared to a 20th level fighter. (And, of course, I'm just talking endgame, but they stay significantly behind the fighter over the course of 20 levels).
There are several problems with this argument.
1. Fighter cohort <> 20th level fighter. It is, at best, an 18th level fighter.
2. A 20th level companion druid's AC won't have 12-14 HD, it'll probably have 18 (dire tiger/triceratops) - 20 (tyrannosaur/dire shark) Perhaps you were assuming a PC would keep their original hawk/dog/horse/owl/snake/wolf throughout their career.
3. As your animals advance in HD, you can select additional feats for them, including ones that are more 'cheaterous' than their base feats. Often just one or two extra feats can make a significant difference.
4. Your AC can wear equipment. Your fighter will obviously have much better equipment, but because of escalating costs, you can get very good 'bang for your buck' out of 'entry level' items. A regular PC may pay many times the cost for each incremental step of improvement.
5. Your animal starts with an enormous advantage over a fighter in terms of base stats and combat ability. Because of this, the add-ons you give your AC don't need to be as big to measure up and surpass.
6. Because your AC usually won't have as many different kinds of equipment and bonuses as a humanoid character, they are more able than PCs and NPCs to benefit from buffing spells and effects because they have less overlap. A spell like holy aura, for instance, is often not that big a deal when most PCs already have deflection bonuses to AC and resistance bonuses to saves approaching or exceeding +4. Those have a larger incremental effect for an AC.
Consider this: With the expenditure of two 2nd level spells and one 3rd level spell and a single piece of equipment costing less than 30,000 gp, a druid can have an animal comp with 259 hit points, an AC of 30, 10' reach, low-light vision, scent, improved grab swallow whole, and evasion. One attack per round at +24 for 3d6+17.
Or one with 282 hp, AC 34, a charge attack at +26 inflicting 4d8+24 or an unavoidable trample attack that inflicts an area up to 15' wide and 60' long with 2d12+19 (Ref DC 28 half).
The second is an 18 HD triceratops.
I should point out I'm not even bothering to try to optimize the creature or even saying tyrannosaur is your best bet. It does the biggest damage and its size makes its grab/swallow ability pretty good, but dire tiger might actually be better, or at least more flexible - it's only Large, not Huge, so it's easier to take with you in dungeons and such. It depends on your campaign. The triceratops is nice too.
It actually was much more brutal back when druids could cast animal growth on your AC, which my vermin-keeper druid was through a rules loophole (my AC was considered a vermin, and my spells could affect vermin) - size increase, +8 Str, +4 Con, +2 natural armor, DR 10/magic. The nerf of making AC's into magical beasts closed some of the loopholes.
An AC is less versatile than a PC/cohort, sure, and less smart and less capable of independent action. It also suffers from the same kinds of high-level limitations as fighters do (lack of versatile ranged/area attacks).
Now, you can argue that PCs shouldn't be able to get dinosaurs as animal companions, but the rules do allow you to do so. Even if dinosaurs live only in rare areas, it is trivial for a high-level druid to travel to such a place with transport via plants and call his companion there, and then return to the main campaign area with the new pet.
Yes, spells can make the animal companion much better, but the druid has to use spells, and spend rounds casting those spells, not to mention the fact that animals are somewhat unpredictable. And, the fighter can be buffed as well, so I'm not sure spells really count much towards power balance. Really, in the game I've been running (and previous games) I've never heard anyone complain about the animal companion even remotely overpowering the druid.
Lots of buff spells are long lasting (at 18th level, as above, barkskin lasts 3 hours, greater magic fang 18 hours, more than enough for a typical adventuring day. You rarely need to cast buff spells IN combat.
The other advantage mentioned before is that the AC allows you to double-dip. A PC with a cohort has to cast buffs separately on himself and the cohort. The AC gets to share any spells the druid casts on himself.
And, as a final note, the AC isn't really contended to overpower the druid. It is posited that the AC overpowers cohorts and potentially even fighter PCs, and that it is an overly powerful class ability that requires very little effort to obtain and even less to replace. Your cohort gets killed, you spend resources to raise him, restore him from other bad permanent effects, etc. Something bad happens to your AC? Wait 24 hours and you have an instant replacement.
Yes, perhaps there should be a mourning period, or an XP cost like with wizard and familiars, or something. But in the rules there's not. Maybe that's a good idea to bring up when the playtest comment rolls around to druids.
If you did halve the animal companion progression, as you say, effectively making it useless (really, that's not worth arguing, this whole thread is filled with people who've found half progression useless) you're kind of limiting options for players who really do like playing pet based characters (and AC is extremely popular in my game, even for rangers).
Ah, but you see, here's the rub:
Animal companions are already handy for a variety of purposes at low levels. At low levels, those animal comps are very useful, even for combat. Heck, at 1st level a wolf is arguably stronger than a PC. So is a heavy horse. It is only around 5th-6th level that they start becoming vulnerable to easy-kill wipeouts.
What else becomes avaiable at 6th level? Leadership
You have a very simple solution for people who want to play pet-based characters. DO IT! By all means, play pet-based characters. Be a pet-based druid, a pet-based ranger, a pet-based paladin, a pet-based wizard, a pet-based cleric, a pet-based ANYTHING. You can use Leadership to get a regular character cohort, OR to get a pet. It's already established in the rules.
For druids and rangers, you could make Leadership have a specific effect: It enables them to increase the power of their animal comp to full level by spending a feat. It's probably a cheap cost, too; Leadership is already probably the most powerful feat in the game.
It just brings the power of a full-level AC in line with what else the feat can give you, a classed cohort or other magical beastie as your buddy. The druid/ranger AC is generally as good as a cohort and probably better than most of the 'monster' cohorts you could get, so there's the benefit of having it as a class ability.
Jason,
Your post makes me wonder, should the game be balanced for the beginning player, the average player, or the power player? Much of what you suggest is definitely 'power player' territory which is to say, not against the rules but beyond what the rules were designed.
With the internet communications is too open and access to game systems 'hacks' such as you present is too widely available to assume players won't network and share power gaming secrets so you really have to design for the power gamer. The downside to this is that limiting the system based on the assumption that everyone will be powergaming will inevitably nerf the average and beginning players.
For druids and rangers, you could make Leadership have a specific effect: It enables them to increase the power of their animal comp to full level by spending a feat. It's probably a cheap cost, too; Leadership is already probably the most powerful feat in the game.
If the AC is as broken as you suggest then why make one single feat that returns the AC to it's broken state?
If Leadership is indeed broken then rather than finding one more broken thing to do with it why not fix leadership?
I just wanted to add that the one buff I really like was Monte's idea that the AC should get the ranger's favored enemy bonus is a great idea. It's a great class-appropriate buff to the AC.
Thanks for throwing that one out there Guru... if it doesn't get ported I think that's a new house rule here.
Ok, honestly, we’re both derailing this thread, but I would like to respond to this.
1. You’re right; a fighter cohort is not a 20th level fighter.
2. Yes, I was assuming that most druids kept the same pet. I’m assuming that because that has happened in every single game I’ve ever played. I think most players tend to get their pet and keep it early because it is a role-playing component with sentimental value, and not an excuse to continually make their character more powerful. Again, you can’t make a game that’s without elements that CAN be broken. You’re operating under the assumption that all players are power-gamers.
3. I’m not sure what to say about that. Yes, you most certainly CAN get feats for your pet. Not the same number as you could a fighter or a fighter cohort, but yes, customization is possible. I’m not sure what it has to do with the rest of this.
4. Umm…again, this isn’t displaying brokenness. Yes, getting better equipment IS exponentially more expensive. Of course, as you said, the fighter will still have much better equipment….
5. Ermmm…they have some special attacks/traits and better ability scores. Of course, they have 3/4 BAB, a d8 HD, don’t use weapons or magical items, and, of course, don’t get iterative attacks or class features.
6. I’m sorry. You can’t argue that not having equipment is an advantage. Those spells would be advantageous to a lightly equipped character the same way they would to an animal companion. And, in such a well-equipped party, the high ability scores sure wouldn’t mean that much.
Your example dinos seem alright, but you can cast those same spells on a fighter, who will, as you said, have much better equipment. 282 HP are impressive and 34 AC is pretty good, but those attacks are nothing compared to what a fighter is going to be doing with a good weapon and iterative attacks.
There are lots of long-lasting buff spells, all of which can be put on a fighter cohort, so I’m really not seeing the overpowered there.
The idea that an AC is a problem because it outpowers a fighter cohort is just silly. First of all, raw power aside, there are logistical and tactical (due to intelligence) concerns with an animal companion that would never show up for a fighter. The DM should probably tell you you can’t bring your T-rex into a cramped dungeon. Aside from that, there’s no way a feat, such as leadership, should be better than a class feature. I’m not sure where your idea that a cohort should be so powerful comes from. A DM is free to rule that a Druid can’t take leadership (as it’s an optional feat).
I’d be in favor of rules to create a mourning period or at least a 1 level wait between pet acquisitions so cheapass players aren’t replacing their pets whenever possible.
I don’t know why you are so in favor of leadership replacing animal companion. What you effectively have said is that you want to take away a class feature, then make druids and rangers spend a feat to get that class feature because somehow you seem to be overplaying the importance of leadership, which is an optional part of the game anyway. Why you think a class feature should be LESS good than a feat, I don’t know, but I heartily disagree.
If the companion is more powerful than an actual fighter PC, then yes, it becomes an issue, but this actually seems like it has more to do with the fighter's failings than anything else.
Anyway, this discussion is about increasing the ability for rangers, and I think people wanting to get rid of animal companion as it currently exists are quite the minority.
Sorry we derailed the thread, everyone. We will now resume your normal ranger-based programming (and, concurrently, why it needs full AC progression).
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
-First of all, the existing companion becomes completely useless after about level 5. It can't damage the enemy at all, nor does it provide any kind of utility compared to other classes (a wizard has a pet with more HP and human int). I suppose a mounted ranger would be alright.The animal companion should not be equivalent to a free extra attack per round. AC is supposed to be a companion, an extra set of eyes, a flank/ aid another buddy, and a sometimes scout... not an extra combatant in the game which is a serious threat in combat.
-Third of all, it sounds like an overwhelming majority of people posting are in favor of giving it full progression. While I'm aware game design isn't a democracy, I can't think of a reason to ignore the players on this one.Good thing.
On a sidenote, I strongly disagree with the people who want to nerf the druid AC. Many druid players are attached the feature as it currently exists, and, speaking from personal experience, some people enjoy the possibility of creating pet-based characters. In order to make the pet powerful, you have to buff it quite a bit, which means that you are wasting the opportunity to memorize or use better spells, so why shouldn't it be a strong feature. Druids already had their most troublesome class feature, wild shape, fixed, I really don't see AC being much of a problem. Besides, it would seriously hinder backwards compatibility.Well many many people disagree with you here. A druid is perfectly capable of both buffing the AC enough to make it a significant threat and casting additional spells. They can also load up their AC with magic items making them an even bigger threat. The druid class is quite powerful enough without having a deadly melee specialist to control on an ongoing basis.
As for backwards compatibility... nerfing the druid's AC is no more or less backwards compatible than buffing the rangers AC. If the druid is to be a dedicated 'pet based' class then it should lose a significant number of it's other class abilities.
As it is right now the druid is a pet based class, a full caster class, a shifter, and a decent martial character... even after the Wildshape Nerf. I would suggest a possible solution would be to give the druid a choice of either Wild Shape or the AC. Even then the druid is still a reasonable class, then you have the choice of shifter+full caster or 'pet based class'+full caster.
I actually think this is an excellent suggestion.
Druid + AC
OR
Druid + WS
It certainly fits wtih PF's approach to class features (arcane bond = item or familiar, paladin mount or weapon, etc.).
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Sorry we derailed the thread, everyone. We will now resume your normal ranger-based programming (and, concurrently, why it needs full AC progression).
In the interest of not further derailing, I will cease and desist from any more rebuttal or argument on the point as well, though I will make the following general statement on the topic.
Leadership, cohorts, familiars, ACs, paladin mounts (as well as any spell that can give you a semi-permanent 'sidekick' (including all planar ally, planar binding and charm/dominate spells)) and all the rest probably need a good looking into. How do we want to balance between your sidekick being an assistant to your PC vs. being a kind of surrogate second character who is nearly as tough as your PC?
Really, are these kinds of sidekicks supposed to be:
A. Buddy/scout/flanker/assistant; or,
B. Independent (but subservient) character that is supposed to be able to pull its own weight and make its own contributions vs. threats at a level appropriate for it's boss' adventuring group.
If it's B, then we absolutely want full progression for AC, cohorts, etc., or else they'll be too weak to do anything useful.
If it's A, then we absolutely DON'T want full progression.
In fact, we might almost abstract the role of the creature into a set of floating bonuses that it can provide to its boss (or allies) or tasks it can be set to perform. I've never played WoW or any other MMO's, but my vague understanding is that 'pets' in that game just sort of accompany your character around and may give you certain bonuses, but they aren't really unique creatures that can be attacked, fight on their own, etc. There was a similar concept in the PH2 if I recall, and perhaps that might be a useful way to go to nerf down the effects of all manner of sidekicks.
This is really along the lines of what PF did with polymorph. Instead of it being (from the power perspective) all about finding the perfect THING to be your pet because it was "full of win," we make the nature of the creature (be it snake, hawk, horse, whatever) less mechanically important. The benefits it provides become homogenized, the specific form becomes more window dressing.
I dunno. I don't like the 4th Ed solution, which is basically to eradicate everything involving allies and sidekicks from the game, but I think there does need to be a design decision on exactly what animal companions (and cohorts/etc.) are meant to do and to be in the game.
-First of all, the existing companion becomes completely useless after about level 5. It can't damage the enemy at all, nor does it provide any kind of utility compared to other classes (a wizard has a pet with more HP and human int). I suppose a mounted ranger would be alright.The animal companion should not be equivalent to a free extra attack per round. AC is supposed to be a companion, an extra set of eyes, a flank/ aid another buddy, and a sometimes scout... not an extra combatant in the game which is a serious threat in combat.
-Third of all, it sounds like an overwhelming majority of people posting are in favor of giving it full progression. While I'm aware game design isn't a democracy, I can't think of a reason to ignore the players on this one.Good thing.
On a sidenote, I strongly disagree with the people who want to nerf the druid AC. Many druid players are attached the feature as it currently exists, and, speaking from personal experience, some people enjoy the possibility of creating pet-based characters. In order to make the pet powerful, you have to buff it quite a bit, which means that you are wasting the opportunity to memorize or use better spells, so why shouldn't it be a strong feature. Druids already had their most troublesome class feature, wild shape, fixed, I really don't see AC being much of a problem. Besides, it would seriously hinder backwards compatibility.Well many many people disagree with you here. A druid is perfectly capable of both buffing the AC enough to make it a significant threat and casting additional spells. They can also load up their AC with magic items making them an even bigger threat. The druid class is quite powerful enough without having a deadly melee specialist to control on an ongoing basis.
As for backwards compatibility... nerfing the druid's AC is no more or less backwards compatible than buffing the rangers AC. If the druid...
Good thing indeed. Of course, it's not necessarily for the "elite" either.
Anyway, I'd have no problem with druids having to choose, or with nerfing the high end options (though, the low-end options could use a high end boost). But scaling it back to ranger progression is silly.
Of course, we're not talking about the Druid right now. So we should get back to the ranger before this devolves to the level of armchair logicians.