Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
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.
Design intent is wholly unclear, unfortunately. If they had meant for people to get a pet and keep that pet their whole career (I haven't seen that happen, but everybody's experience is different) they wouldn't have included rules for having elephants and giant squid and tyrannosaurs and dire sabre-toothed wombats as AC's you could get at higher levels. There's not much reason to have a giant killer dinosaur as an AC other than to be a combat machine and to reach things on really high shelves (except T-Rex can't reach it with his tiny little arms!).
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.
It's true. It's the "nuke em from orbit, it's the only way to be sure" approach. My kids play video games and I'm rather appalled at how they seem to think it entirely normal, rational, and sensible to use "walk throughs" and "guides" when playing games - to me, that seems rather like cheating, but if the games are made so hard that only the cheaters can play, then WTF?
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?
Good point. We should fix Leadership.
I think I meant only to point out that there was already a mechanism in the game to accomplish getting a Super-Pet. Therefore, Drd/Rgr should get a Nice Pet (at low levels when a Nice Pet is still useful), but in order to get a Super-Pet they'd have to spend a feat like everybody else.
The real answer, though, as I mentioned in the previous post, lies in deciding whether we WANT to have Super-Pets in the game at all; whether that is really the role we want pets to have. I'm not sure, really. It's a good question to ask design-wise, though.
|
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...
Were you replying to me or to Dennis? The quoting stuff was kind of all munged together so I wasn't sure.
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.
Indeed not so we'll revisit when the druid comes up, you'd better work on your arguments now ;)
The problem is that so many people want to tie the ranger's AC to the druids. If the game were isolated between the druid and the ranger then I would agree, the rangers AC should be the same as the druids. Looking at the two classes druid class is clearly as powerful or more powerful than the ranger class.
However is it really appropriate to try and make every class as powerful as the most powerful class in the game? If you give the ranger the full Animal Companion the druid has YOU essentially double the potency of the ranger. Not only does this give him an additional attack/ round (Or more at higher levels), it effectively doubles his presence and level of thread on the battlemat. A ranger plus full animal companion can be effective at melee and ranged attack simultaneously. Compare this to what a fighter or barbarian can do and you start to see how unbalanced this really is compared to the ranger's martial counter parts.
Personally I see ACs and Familiars all in the role of 'Option A' Jason described: Buddy/scout/flanker/assistant; . As such I feel the current AC is perfect... the suggestion that ACs are not a threat to level appropriate creatures is fine with me, it's appropriate for a class feature.
As a flanker/ assistant the AC is not truly dangerous by itself but can worry the enemy making the ranger more effective against a single target or for ranged specialists the AC guards the ranger preventing enemies from threatening the ranger. This is where the AC is currently and it's a good balance for the class.
PS: One more plug for the Favored Enemy bonus to the AC
Given the changes that have and haven't been implemented, I don't think the good people of Paizo are likely to go through and completely redesign the animal companion to fit whatever niche we do or don't think the animal companion should fill (unless, of course, it's a really large majority of people). The question is, as the system exists now (and, since this isn't the Druid discussion board, assuming the druid is still the same) would it or would it not be fair to give the ranger companion the same progression as the Druid currently has?
On a sidenote, I'm not sure games should be designed around powergamers. The problem is, there will always be people who find loopholes and that's the DM's job to control. The only way to munchkin-proof a system is by eliminating options, which is why people are so unhappy with 4e. Yes, the internet has lead to a major dispersal of tricks, but I don't think the majority of players are actually wasting their time searching for that information. Also, I think a LOT of players pick things like animal companions based on what they like rather than what will be statistically effective. By dint of being on this forum, I think our perspective is a wee bit skewed.
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.Indeed not so we'll revisit.
The problem is that so many people want to tie the ranger's AC to the druids. Personally I see ACs and Familiars all in the role of 'Option A' Jason described: Buddy/scout/flanker/assistant; . As such I feel the current AC is perfect... the suggestion that ACs are not a threat to level appropriate creatures is fine with me, making them a threat essentially doubles the potency of the ranger. Not only does this give him an additional attack/ round, it effectively doubles his presence and level of thread on the battlemat. So a ranger can be effective at melee and ranged attack simultaneously. Compare this to what a fighter or barbarian can do.
As a flanker/ assistant the AC is not truly dangerous by itself but can worry the enemy making the ranger more effecting against a single target or for ranged specialists the AC guards the ranger preventing enemies from threatening the ranger. This is where the AC is right now.
I see what you mean, but the problem is sort of how nicheless the ranger's current companion ends up being. The buddy/scout/assistant thing is kinda useless in a party with familiars, and the flanker is laughable, as it simply won't survive up close. The problem I've seen the rangers in my group complain about isn't that it doesn't do enough damage, but that it can't survive.
I can see how it would be a combat issue if they got some of the high-end companions, but I think people are worried about not even being able to play out their concepts (for example, things like wolves and hounds are ill-advised, as they'll just die).
What if the Ranger were to have a more limited list, so they could only take the low-end things, but then advanced them as druid pets?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Given the changes that have and haven't been implemented, I don't think the good people of Paizo are likely to go through and completely redesign the animal companion to fit whatever niche we do or don't think the animal companion should fill (unless, of course, it's a really large majority of people). The question is, as the system exists now (and, since this isn't the Druid discussion board, assuming the druid is still the same) would it or would it not be fair to give the ranger companion the same progression as the Druid currently has?
On a sidenote, I'm not sure games should be designed around powergamers. The problem is, there will always be people who find loopholes and that's the DM's job to control. The only way to munchkin-proof a system is by eliminating options, which is why people are so unhappy with 4e. Yes, the internet has lead to a major dispersal of tricks, but I don't think the majority of players are actually wasting their time searching for that information. Also, I think a LOT of players pick things like animal companions based on what they like rather than what will be statistically effective. By dint of being on this forum, I think our perspective is a wee bit skewed.
Oh, absolutely. You can't out-rule a rules lawyer, because there will always be another loophole somewhere. As you have tons of books, you have the potential for tons of exotic options.
Still, there are wide-open doors to viciousness (like listing huge dinosaurs and giant/dire animals listed right in the PH/SRD as standard animal companions) sitting there like low-hanging fruit, you need to seriously question whether they should be there.
Also, there are things that people like AND that are statistically effective. James Jacobs loves dinosaurs. If he were playing a druid/ranger, he would most likely be chomping at the bit to get his mitts on a dino for an AC, and the bigger and nastier the better. Someone who likes cats might as easily take a leopard as a dire tiger.
In answer to your question above, though, my answer would actually be this:
All things being equal, I think a ranger should have a BETTER animal companion than a druid of equal level.
The basic reason is simple. A druid has a jillion spells plus wild shape and some other nice class abilities. Those are, in my mind, better than the suite of class abilities the ranger has. In the interest of class balance (without 4th-style homogeneity), I think that the ranger's class ability of AC should be better than the druid's class ability of AC.
I think ranger should be the 'pet' class.
NOW, let me add a couple of wrinkles to that basic position:
1. I think the ranger's AC, level advancement aside, could be made a lot better by being able to share the ranger's class abilities, most specifically favored enemy and favored terrain.
2. If we made druids choose between wild shape and AC, then I would be fine with the AC-choosers having a fully awesome AC, as good as a ranger's.
3. I'm undecided on whether I think AC/cohorts should be Super-Pets at all. My favored solution would actually start with answering this question and then revisiting the issue.
I see what you mean, but the problem is sort of how nicheless the ranger's current companion ends up being. The buddy/scout/assistant thing is kinda useless in a party with familiars, and the flanker is laughable, as it simply won't survive up close. The problem I've seen the rangers in my group complain about isn't that it doesn't do enough damage, but that it can't survive.
I can see how it would be a combat issue if they got some of the high-end companions, but I think people are worried about not even being able to play out their concepts (for example, things like wolves and hounds are ill-advised, as they'll just die).
What if the Ranger were to have a more limited list, so they could only take the low-end things, but then advanced them as druid pets?
I think this is a legitimate concern, I just think it can be solved without giving the ranger a T-Rex ;) One thing I've noticed is that many players are pretty reckless with their ACs and/ or aren't aware that they can buff their ACs with armor/ magic.
There is a feat in the Pathfinder Campaign setting which gives the Ranger an AC at druid level -2 but the ranger must pick his AC at first level and can never change his AC. I haven't looked too closely at how that would work over the full progression but IMO it's very close to what you suggest. I'll look it over a little tomorrow and comment a little more on it then. At first glance it sounds like a reasonable compromise to me but I have to look it over some more.
Oh, absolutely. You can't out-rule a rules lawyer, because there will always be another loophole somewhere. As you have tons of books, you have the potential for tons of exotic options.
Still, there are wide-open doors to viciousness (like listing huge dinosaurs and giant/dire animals listed right in the PH/SRD as standard animal companions) sitting there like low-hanging fruit, you need to seriously question whether they should be there.
Also, there are things that people like AND that are statistically effective. James Jacobs loves dinosaurs. If he were playing a druid/ranger, he would most likely be chomping at the bit to get his mitts on a dino for an AC, and the bigger and nastier the better. Someone who likes cats might as easily take a leopard as a dire...
See, looking at things like dinosaurs, I can see the problem. I tend to think of things low-end more than I do high end (Also, my players never want anything too bizarre, so I haven't run into HOLYSHITATREX problems). But yes, I suppose the stuff that's too easy to break without trying should be gotten rid of. This was a problem with 3.0 and 3.5 wildshape. You didn't even have to TRY to break it, classic things like dire bears were overpowered (Also, somebody REALLY loved druids).
I think this is a legitimate concern, I just think it can be solved without giving the ranger a T-Rex ;) One thing I've noticed is that many players are pretty reckless with their ACs and/ or aren't aware that they can buff their ACs with armor/ magic.
There is a feat in the Pathfinder Campaign setting which gives the Ranger an AC at druid level -2 but the ranger must pick his AC at first level and can never change his AC. I haven't looked too closely at how that would work over the full progression but IMO it's very close to what you suggest. I'll look it over a little tomorrow and comment a little more on it then. At first glance it sounds like a reasonable compromise to me but I have to look it over some more.
I haven't heard of said feat, but I will certainly be looking at it. It does sound like it would probably fix the current ranger problems, though.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Just a few points.
If I am correct the feat being referred to is Sable Company Marine from the Players Guide to Corvosa (p63) and specifies taking a Hippogriff as an animal companion with a requirement of Ranger Level 4.
Share Spell no longer gives 2 for 1 buffs in Pathfinder. It only allows you to cast spells on your AC that are target (You) and that would not normally affect their creature type (animal). You no longer share spell effects in the sense of "cast on myself and my animal companion gets the benefit too".
Good catch. I missed that change.
Discussing the Ranger AC without reference to the Druid AC is silly as they are currently the same class feature with different rates of progression. Changing the feature for one class will (except for changing the difference in progression rate) affect both. If the AC is redefined when the Druid is discussed, that will affect the Ranger AC as well.
Any companion (animal or otherwise) that lacks the HP (and AC) to survive on the same battlefield with the party will die quickly and frequently (unless the DM is exceptionally kind). Whether able to contribute to the combat or not, if it cannot take a full round of hits you may as well leave it back in town because it will not survive. Such companions are more of hindrance than a help as they become a liability and drain on party resources (must be protected and healed a lot). You generally don't take a PC 5 levels lower than the rest of the party with you because they won't survive, why would you expect an NPC companion to fare any better?
It's true, which is why in my experience familiars often end up getting stuck in the Sor/Wiz charactr's pocket 95% of the time. If they peek their head out to try to DO something they are toast.
If we do want familiar/AC/cohort to be a sidekick/buddy/helper and not an independent badass, then we need to conceptualize them as something different from just "wimpy guy/critter that tags along" because that won't help anybody too much.
PS - I think I said earlier the ranger had an AC-replacement ability in the PH2. Actually, I think it was the hexblade, which could replace its familiar with a shadowy flanker spirit that could move around and do some of the stuff a companion might, but it couldn't be killed because it was a spirit, not an actual creature. Don't remember the details, but it was something like that.
And overall, yes, this discussion will flare back up when we talk druids down the road.
I haven't heard of said feat, but I will certainly be looking at it. It does sound like it would probably fix the current ranger problems, though.
Actually it's not a feat, it's an alternate class ability. The ranger also loses his wild empathy ability.
Enhanced Companion (Ex): Upon gaining an animal companion
at 4th level, the ranger must choose a single type of animal. The
ranger cannot call a different animal companion. The ranger’s
effective druid level is equal to the ranger’s level –2 (instead of
the normal 1/2) for that type of animal. This animal must be on
the basic list of companions that can be chosen at 4th level and
cannot be changed.
I still haven't really looked at this in depth but from 20,000' I think if it were the core rule it would be fine. I wouldn't even force the ranger to give up wild empathy.
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
I agree with this completely. When I DM this is usually how I house rule it.
|
Hiya All
I have been reading this, and there are some I agree with and some not. As is usual when you get people together to chat. I do not understand WHY this column was named "Please Buff the PET" as some one said if you want a pet you buy and take care of it. The Animal Companion is not a PET it is Companion and part of the Ranger or Druid.
Someone mentioned using feats such as natural bond and Practiced spellcaster, I do not think these are on the open list to be used. These just bring companion almost upto par with a druid. Though the spell power of a Ranger will never match that of the druid or capicity to buff the Animal Companion.
I have played Ranger's since the first handout/books have been out. The Animal Companion is suppose to help and be a part of the Ranger.Someone mentioned they are not suppose to be main line fighters that is true. But as we all know once a Druid buffs his companion they are, but the Rangers companion can only be around for a short before being killed or scared off as is.
I play in RPGA and have a Ranger with a Cheetah. I have had to keep my companion almost completely out of battles for with 4 HD as a level 10 Ranger has, this is one swipe from most monsters and he's dead. Try to use him as a flank or any other special maneuver and he dies after the second/third round with an inteligent monster.
Now out of all this I agree the Animal Companion should be equivelant leveling as if Druid and Ranger are same level. The spells that the Ranger gets does some buffing but not near what a Druid does.
In Higher level games you are also talking about Spells that go off and if not said level, dead or totally incapicitated.(these spells have been changed some, I have not had chance to read them yet)
Some of the other suggestions have merit but when trying backwards compatability, they lose some ground, where with same level as druid some simple work and ready to go.
Enhanced Companion (Ex): Upon gaining an animal companion
at 4th level, the ranger must choose a single type of animal. The
ranger cannot call a different animal companion. The ranger’s
effective druid level is equal to the ranger’s level –2 (instead of
the normal 1/2) for that type of animal. This animal must be on
the basic list of companions that can be chosen at 4th level and
cannot be changed.I still haven't really looked at this in depth but from 20,000' I think if it were the core rule it would be fine. I wouldn't even force the ranger to give up wild empathy.
I agree, this does seem like a somewhat reasonable compromise (it's, at the least,vastly preferable to what exists now). However, the problem with limiting the companions to the first tier basic list is that it kinda craps on concept. If you want a cheetah or jaguar, as people have mentioned, and it's based on "I like X" not "X has good stats", I'm pretty in favor of it. We could limit it to the first two tiers, as that would allow for a lot of flexibility.
Hiya All
Now out of all this I agree the Animal Companion should be equivelant leveling as if Druid and Ranger are same level. The spells that the Ranger gets does some buffing but not near what a Druid does.
In Higher level games you are also talking about Spells that go off and if not said level, dead or totally incapicitated.(these spells have been changed some, I have not had chance to read them yet)Some of the other suggestions have merit but when trying backwards compatability, they lose some ground, where with same level as druid some simple work and ready to go.
I agree with this. The compromise put up is alright, but this seems like a quick simple fix that will make most people happy.
It's possible that the companion needs to be revisited (though, I don't think it should lack combat efficacy the way some of you do. If it were meant to be an assistant, it'd be a familiar. If it were meant to be able to be a combatant, it'd be a wolf/bear/etc). The high end options might need to be scaled back, and the low end options might need a bit of a boost (Do players actually NEED to get a Trex or dire shark? Couldn't they be happy with a deinonychus or a regular shark?). Personally, I think of it as a beloved sidekick that you get within your first few levels and that continues to advance with you. I don't care for the idea that it gets traded in. I'm aware others have a different opinion.
But, ultimately, whatever the pet ends up being, for simplicity's sake, it's easiest if it's the same for druids AND rangers.
I agree, this does seem like a somewhat reasonable compromise (it's, at the least,vastly preferable to what exists now). However, the problem with limiting the companions to the first tier basic list is that it kinda craps on concept. If you want a cheetah or jaguar, as people have mentioned, and it's based on "I like X" not "X has good stats", I'm pretty in favor of it. We could limit it to the first two tiers, as that would allow for a lot of flexibility.
The first two tiers would probably be ok... I'm not sure exactly where the cutoff is. Somewhere between Riding Dog and Tyrannosaur ;)
|
This is something that, as I have mentioned elsewhere, I really do care about. Has there been (in another thread) any indication on where Jason/Paizo are standing on it? A lot of other things I'm not as concerned about -- although I suspect that, like a lot of other people, I'm going to get animated during the Wizard/Sorceror discussions, not to mention Cleric/Druid -- but it seems to me that this is a sufficiently small fix to significantly increase the enjoyment in the game for those people that like playing Rangers.
This is something that, as I have mentioned elsewhere, I really do care about. Has there been (in another thread) any indication on where Jason/Paizo are standing on it? A lot of other things I'm not as concerned about -- although I suspect that, like a lot of other people, I'm going to get animated during the Wizard/Sorceror discussions, not to mention Cleric/Druid -- but it seems to me that this is a sufficiently small fix to significantly increase the enjoyment in the game for those people that like playing Rangers.
Well other than commenting that PRPG gives the Animal Companion favored enemy bonuses (yeah!) he's kept pretty quiet about it. But then Jason tends to keep his thoughts close so it's often not clear what he's paying attention to.
So...is the consensus, "Buff the ranger's pet, nerf the higher-tier options"?
I have already house rules that for animal companions ranger level is equal to druid lvl -3. I think that will work out fine.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
So...is the consensus, "Buff the ranger's pet, nerf the higher-tier options"?
I'd be fine with this, especially if the nerf the higher-tier options was accomplished in a way that rangers couldn't get them, but high level druids could. I.e. they're available at levels 18 and up, but rangers got their ACs as ranger level -3, so at 20th level they only counted as 17th for AC.
Also, I'd like to re-suggest spreading out the AC advancement table so that there are gradual increase over more levels instead of a large group of increases every 3 levels.
So...is the consensus, "Buff the ranger's pet, nerf the higher-tier options"?
Well the ranger's pet has been 'buffed' with FE bonus. The rangers AC should should be in sync with the druid's AC. We'll knock about what the druid's AC should look like on Monday :) (Hint: No PC should have a 'pet' capable of consuming a small village in a day)
Edit: That's not a real answer. Yes, the ranger's AC would be reasonable at the druids current progression -3 levels if the AC were locked at the first tier.
Also, I'd like to re-suggest spreading out the AC advancement table so that there are gradual increase over more levels instead of a large group of increases every 3 levels.
While it would be nice, I don't think it's worth expanding the table in an already complex, column inch heavy class.
|
|
I'd say level -2 or -3 would be fine, but there really should be a clause in there to nix the T-rex animal companions for rangers. the Campaign setting variant seems just fine, but it should also allow access to the second tier.
I was there originally but on reflection I think that parity between ranger and druid levels for AC progression is fine.
And yeah, no T-Rex AC.
Not to be rude, but what the f*ck? Why is everyone so hell-bent on crapping all over the ranger's animal companion while letting the druid "I am still broken by virtue of being a full caster; hey, look, I can make my pet f*cking awesome" be fine?
Giving the druid a g#+!!#n T. rex is far more of an issue than it is to give the ranger a g#%~!!n T. rex. (And yes, that's the new official term: "g+$++#n T. rex.")
Nerf the higher-tier options; give the ranger a full animal companion. There is absolutely no reason that the ranger--who has access to gimp spells--should have a worse pet than the druid--who has access to ninth-level spells.
Not to be rude, but what the f*ck? Why is everyone so hell-bent on crapping all over the ranger's animal companion while letting the druid "I am still broken by virtue of being a full caster; hey, look, I can make my pet f*cking awesome" be fine?
Giving the druid a g#~+~$n T. rex is far more of an issue than it is to give the ranger a g@#*~@n T. rex. (And yes, that's the new official term: "g&~**@n T. rex.")
Nerf the higher-tier options; give the ranger a full animal companion. There is absolutely no reason that the ranger--who has access to gimp spells--should have a worse pet than the druid--who has access to ninth-level spells.
Forget your morning coffee?
I said quite explicitly that the druid and ranger's AC should be at parity.
Though I might bend and say let the druid keep his AC if the druid had to choose between Wild Shape and his Animal Companion. But the T-Rex and many of the other high level ACs would have to go regardless.
Why is the T-Rex such a concern? Its just a big creature with one attack. Whatever. Its not even optimal (that would be the Megaraptor, which has multiple attacks and pounce).
I don't think the T-Rex specifically is necessarily the worst abuse. The problem is the entire concept that a druids animal companion is capable of overshadowing or at the very least stealing a significant part of the martial characters party role... I don't care if it's the mega raptor or the T-Rex, or the giant tortise, I'm mostly concerned with the whole concept of mega-pets and their role in the game.
Class features should not rival PCs for stage time.
Forget your morning coffee?I said quite explicitly that the druid and ranger's AC should be at parity.
Though I might bend and say let the druid keep his AC if the druid had to choose between Wild Shape and his Animal Companion. But the T-Rex and many of the other high level ACs would have to go regardless.
Well, we've all gone back and forth a bit. What I think PR is getting mad about is that there are a lot of pain-in-the-ass subsystems that become a bit grating. I mean, level -2 or -3 has been pushed a lot, but, ultimately, it's a big headache to figure out the tiny differences so that one class can be slightly better at something. I think this "you have this feature equal to this class at level -3" over class features that aren't that powerful or class-defining is kind of annoying and unnecessary (I feel the same way about paladins and positive energy surge). For simplicity's sake, I kind of feel like 'give it the feature or don't'. And, really, what's wrong with two classes being equally good at animal companion, or having two classes equally good at channeling energy?
On a sidenote, if AC is going to be modified (I propose high-end options removed and mid-end options spread out a bit), I want the last couple of tiers to add a few extra HD and a bit bigger of a stat boost so the level one stuff can compete. I'd like to see players who kept the same pet for 20 levels be rewarded.
On a second sidenote, can we please get off of this "It's not supposed to be a combatant" stuff? Yes, it is. If it weren't, it would be a familiar. It shouldn't outshine the fighter, but it is not supposed to be an assistant.
|
|
On a second sidenote, can we please get off of this "It's not supposed to be a combatant" stuff? Yes, it is. If it weren't, it would be a familiar. It shouldn't outshine the fighter, but it is not supposed to be an assistant.
Dictionary:
companion (kəm-păn'yən)
n.
1.
1. A person who accompanies or associates with another; a comrade.
2. A domestic partner.
2. A person employed to assist, live with, or travel with another.
3. One of a pair or set of things; a mate.
An assistant is exactly what it is. Whether it's intended to be a serious assistant in melee combat is certainly up for question. For the druid, with the impressive buffs available, maybe so. For the ranger, it really doesn't look that way. (Honestly, could the 3.5 designers really have overlooked the fragility of a ranger's companion? I grant the possibility, but I find it strongly unlikely.)
There's lots you can do with an animal companion other than fight: scouting, watch-dogging, tracking, and so on. I find it very easy to believe these functions -- and not combat -- were intended for the ranger's animal companion.
--Jeff
[Dictionary:
companion (kəm-păn'yən)
n.
1.
1. A person who accompanies or associates with another; a comrade.
2. A domestic partner.
2. A person employed to assist, live with, or travel with another.
3. One of a pair or set of things; a mate.An assistant is exactly what it is. Whether it's intended to be a serious assistant in melee combat is certainly up for question. For the druid, with the impressive buffs available, maybe so. For the ranger, it really doesn't look that way. (Honestly, could the 3.5 designers really have overlooked the fragility of a ranger's companion? I grant the possibility, but I find it strongly unlikely.)
There's lots you can do with an animal companion other than fight: scouting, watch-dogging, tracking, and so on. I find it very easy to believe these functions -- and not combat -- were intended for the ranger's animal companion.
--Jeff
See? I told you if the conversation continued we'd get some kind of armchair logician crap started.
I didn't really think that 'assistant' had to be further broken down into in-combat and out-of-combat, since the discussion people were having was combatant vs. assistant.
Thanks for not really, ya know, contributing to the discussion with that sarcastic hair-splitting nonsense.
A ranger's AC is pointless for scouting and watch-dogging with the familiar around and the ranger can track by itself.
Well, we've all gone back and forth a bit. What I think PR is getting mad about is that there are a lot of pain-in-the-ass subsystems that become a bit grating. I mean, level -2 or -3 has been pushed a lot, but, ultimately, it's a big headache to figure out the tiny differences so that one class can be slightly better at something. I think this "you have this feature equal to this class at level -3" over class features that aren't that powerful or class-defining is kind of annoying and unnecessary (I feel the same way about paladins and positive energy surge). For simplicity's sake, I kind of feel like 'give it the feature or don't'. And, really, what's wrong with two classes being equally good at animal companion, or having two classes equally good at channeling energy?
Not a thing. I don't have a problem with the ranger and druid having an equal companion or with Paladin turning undead equal to the Cleric (Actually I would really like that a lot... hmm). My gripe isn't with relative power of the druid and ranger ACs, it is with the overall power of the druid's AC. I don't want to see a broken class feature in one class spread to another.
On a sidenote, if AC is going to be modified (I propose high-end options removed and mid-end options spread out a bit), I want the last couple of tiers to add a few extra HD and a bit bigger of a stat boost so the level one stuff can compete. I'd like to see players who kept the same pet for 20 levels be rewarded.
On a second sidenote, can we please get off of this "It's not supposed to be a combatant" stuff? Yes, it is. If it weren't, it would be a familiar. It shouldn't outshine the fighter, but it is not supposed to be an assistant.
Well I suppose that depends on what you consider a combatant. Is it really cool to give a ranger a second attack/ round, a second presence on the battlefield compared to the fighter and the barbarian? I can't speak for others but I am not suggesting the AC be worthless on the battlefield, just that it should be there to harry the ranger's opponents and not to be a significant threat.
The Masters of the Wild WotC splatbook had an option to increase an animal companion's HD by +1, up to your character level, for 200 XP/HD. I've used it in my campaigns and haven't found it overpowering.
Another option would be to keep the rangers animal companion as is, but allow them to take a feat that would increase its abilities to match a druid of the same level.
I know. I'm such an elitist. It's just ridiculously snooty to expect other people to have a grasp of the English language.
My bad. You can go back to watching "Flavor of Love" now. Booooyyyy!
--Jeff
No, you're a failure as an armchair logician because you're arguing the fine details of denotation versus colloquialisms, thereby demonstrating your own inability to comprehend the English language.
It's ironic, really.
Would you now care to tell me which fallacies I'm invoking by jeering at your feeble attempts at discourse?
Not a thing. I don't have a problem with the ranger and druid having an equal companion or with Paladin turning undead equal to the Cleric (Actually I would really like that a lot... hmm). My gripe isn't with relative power of the druid and ranger ACs, it is with the overall power of the druid's AC. I don't want to see a broken class feature in one class spread to another.
I think broken's a little strong in the context of freezing time and creatimg magical items, but I do see the problem. The funny thing is, I've always looked at AC as a semi-underpowered combatant because my players always stuck with low-end options. It sounds like a bit of streamlining is in order (though, I'm not suggesting anything so hokey as an eagle having the same STR as a bear, just...closer). The high-end stuff is a problem. I'm just arguing 'give druids and rangers the same' for simplicity's sake (also, the current ranger AC is pointless, and the 'shares favored X' bonus is a silly bandaid).
Well I suppose that depends on what you consider a combatant. Is it really cool to give a ranger a second attack/ round, a second presence on the battlefield compared to the fighter and the barbarian? I can't speak for others but I am not suggesting the AC be worthless on...
See, I don't really understand this argument. As they currently exist, the barbarian, and the poor, ravaged, underpowered fighter are both capable of making mincemeat out of the ranger, unless they happen to be his/her favored enemy and are on his/her favored terrain. So, adding one additional attack (Which, for most animals, is going to be really sub-par compared to said barbarian or fighter) doesn't seem to create much of a balance issue. And, don't forget, the balance issues (though I hate the concept of balance) include all of the classes, so against a wizard or cleric, that extra attack/presence is kind of a minor blip.
The problem with harrier/flanker VS significant threat, is that it's hard to do one without the other. Damage/HP/special abilities kind of scale together. And some people don't want a pet for flanking, some people want to stand back and let their pet fight. HOW significant of a threat is definitely an issue that needs addressing, because, I agree, even if a pet should be able to do considerable damage to a foe, it shouldn't be on par with the fighter.
I know I keep saying this, but I think everyone would be happy with a bit of streamlining. Well, everyone but powergamers, but they don't deserve to get what they want, heh.
See, I don't really understand this argument. As they currently exist, the barbarian, and the poor, ravaged, underpowered fighter are both capable of making mincemeat out of the ranger, unless they happen to be his/her favored enemy and are on his/her favored terrain. So, adding one additional attack (Which, for most animals, is going to be really sub-par compared to said barbarian or fighter) doesn't seem to create much of a balance issue. And, don't forget, the balance issues (though I hate the concept of balance) include all of the classes, so against a wizard or cleric, that extra attack/presence is kind of a minor blip.
Well I suppose that depends on what you consider a combatant. Is it really cool to give a ranger a second attack/ round, a second presence on the battlefield compared to the fighter and the barbarian? I can't speak for others but I am not suggesting the AC be worthless on...
Except the game isn't PvP, it's the PCs versus whatever the DM throws at them. The ranger isn't supposed to be able to stand toe to toe with the barbarian or the fighter in a straight out brawl. The Ranger has other class abilities (Stealth, skills, animal empathy, etc), plus it's assumed the ranger will be encountering his favored enemy at least some of the time in the game. This is like suggesting the rogue should be able to stand toe-to-toe with the fighter or the barbarian (unless the rogue has flanking or invisibility it's gonna be a bit one sided). Some characters are intended to have roles beyond straight martial skills, the straight martial classes should have an edge in combat on those characters.
The problem with harrier/flanker VS significant threat, is that it's hard to do one without the other. Damage/HP/special abilities kind of scale together.
And some people don't want a pet for flanking, some people want to stand back and let their pet fight. HOW significant of a threat is definitely an issue that needs addressing, because, I agree, even if a pet should be able to do considerable damage to a foe, it shouldn't be on par with the fighter.
That's Pokemon not D&D, D&D should be about the Player Characters. Animal Companions and even Familiars are late entrants to the game and the super powerful ones a really late entrant. How do you role play a dire bear?
I wouldn't mind seeing a new class that's dedicated to being an animal handler. I don't want to see the ranger class as one though.
Lets talk about the realities of 3e combat. That 'flanker/scout/etc...' that you're all so keen on is known by a culinary term to the monsters - "appetizer", possibly pre-fixed by 'bite-sized'. It seriously goes down to one attack at mid-high levels. That's a crappy pet. Its useless, because it doesn't actually get to flank at all, it just dies. If we're going to have a pet, it should be able to survive being at all near the combat to be useful. The reality is that offense > defense in D+D 3e, and thus any pet which can survive being in the proximity of combat can dish out some decent damage.
Unless you're a Druid and cast a few spells to buff your Animal Companion before combat, this description pretty much hits the nail on the head in regards to how Animal Companions currently handle. At higher levels, they make for some tougher-then-normal mounts, but that's all they really have going for them. If you're a Ranger, you're better off taking Leadership if you want a flanker. And if your a Druid, you still might want to use your spells for other things besides buffing your otherwise hapless pet.
That's Pokemon not D&D, D&D should be about the Player Characters. Animal Companions and even Familiars are late entrants to the game and the super powerful ones a really late entrant. How do you role play a dire bear?
You demand a LOT of fish and honey and maim anyone that keeps you from obtaining these tasty treasures!
I wasn't saying that the game IS pvp, it was an example of how one measly weak attack isn't going to suddenly turn the ranger into some kind of death god. You're only considering endgame pets when you consider it a problem. If a ranger has a wolf, under the current rules, it's weak as hell. It's not really going to do much for the ranger one way or another. For every example of how this would overbalance the ranger, there are numerous other examples of how it wouldn't make that much difference. And you yourself have said that allowing full progression of lower-end pets isn't a problem. It's just the high end stuff you have a problem with.
As for the pokemon thing, that's kinda bullsh*t. Players like being able to play pet-based characters, and there are several classes that allow for it. If I want to play a character who is based around a faithful eagle, the rules should allow for it, not be scaled back so the fighter doesn't whine. And if I am pet-based, then that IS a game about my character, because the pet is an extension of that. Besides that, I don't see you arguing to get rid of cohorts. I don't think the problem a couple of you have towards an option that CAN potentially be broken is enough to fairly screw the rest of the players over.
That's Pokemon not D&D, D&D should be about the Player Characters. Animal Companions and even Familiars are late entrants to the game and the super powerful ones a really late entrant. How do you role play a dire bear?
Because we all know that the spellcaster with an extremely powerful sidekick that does his dirty work is something that NEVER occurs in fantasy literature.
I wasn't saying that the game IS pvp, it was an example of how one measly weak attack isn't going to suddenly turn the ranger into some kind of death god. You're only considering endgame pets when you consider it a problem. If a ranger has a wolf, under the current rules, it's weak as hell. It's not really going to do much for the ranger one way or another. For every example of how this would overbalance the ranger, there are numerous other examples of how it wouldn't make that much difference. And you yourself have said that allowing full progression of lower-end pets isn't a problem. It's just the high end stuff you have a problem with.
I'm not sure I ever said full progression of lower end pets isn't a problem. I believe what I said is the current druid level -2 or -3. I would like to see both classes animal companions at that level.
As for the pokemon thing, that's kinda bullsh*t. Players like being able to play pet-based characters, and there are several classes that allow for it. If I want to play a character who is based around a faithful eagle, the rules should allow for it, not be scaled back so the fighter doesn't whine. And if I am pet-based, then that IS a game about my character, because the pet is an extension of that.
If someone wants to make a 'Pet' based class for example a 'beastmaster' class then that's fine with me. The ranger class more or less stands on his own without having a critter which defines the player character.
Besides that, I don't see you arguing to get rid of cohorts. I don't think the problem a couple of you have towards an option that CAN potentially be broken is enough to fairly screw the rest of the players over.
Actually I have suggested that the Leadership Feat get fixed once already but seeing as we haven't started talking about the Feats and the Leadership Feat I haven't said much about it. You can bet I will be arguing for nerfing the Leadership Feat.
|
|
Why is the T-Rex such a concern? Its just a big creature with one attack. Whatever. Its not even optimal (that would be the Megaraptor, which has multiple attacks and pounce).
My concern is just that it's silly. However, I don't mind so much if it's in the rules, as presumably the DM will houserule it out (I will) even if there were godamned T-Rexs wandering around. I'll also houserule level-2 or parity with Druid levels, but I'd like to see that in the official rules.
I made a feat for Animal Companions and suggested it here: Tiered Animal Companions
Here's the part which might interest Ranger AC lovers:
.
Beast Friend
Prerequisites: Animal Companion Class Feature
Benefit: Add 5 to your effective druid level for the purpose of advancing your Animal Companion. This feat cannot advance your effective druid level above your actual character level.
I tend to agree that the ranger should get the same AC as the druid but failing that having a way to keep the AC in sync is good. With this rangers would have comparable ACs through 10th level when they would slowly fall off. This would also make rangers able to get some of the more advanced ACs. It also allows multi class druid or rangers to advance their AC.
|
|
I tend to agree that the ranger should get the same AC as the druid but failing that having a way to keep the AC in sync is good. With this rangers would have comparable ACs through 10th level when they would slowly fall off. This would also make rangers able to get some of the more advanced ACs. It also allows multi class druid or rangers to advance their AC.
My problem with that would be that it's at higher levels that the imbalance is worst and although you're reducing that imbalance, the design specifically puts it in there. It's better than the current situation -- useless Ranger ACs -- but I'd be happy to see straight parity or a two-level lag as a simpler option (and in fact it already is an option in the campaign guide, albeit with strings).
My problem with that would be that it's at higher levels that the imbalance is worst and although you're reducing that imbalance, the design specifically puts it in there. It's better than the current situation -- useless Ranger ACs -- but I'd be happy to see straight parity or a two-level lag as a simpler option (and in fact it already is an option in the campaign guide, albeit with strings).
I tend to agree that the ranger should get the same AC as the druid but failing that having a way to keep the AC in sync is good. With this rangers would have comparable ACs through 10th level when they would slowly fall off. This would also make rangers able to get some of the more advanced ACs. It also allows multi class druid or rangers to advance their AC.
PR suggested giving the rangers full progression and druids 1/2... nice thought but seems unlikely to happen. The feat is based on the system as it stands now... though it would still be useful for multi classing if they did power up the ranger's AC. Ranger Rogues are kind of a nice multi and this would make it even better.
The Druid should have full Animal Companion progression.
The Ranger should have Level-3 Animal Companion progression.
The Ranger should NOT have to take a Feat to be able to do this.
The Animal Companion isn't THAT powerful.