Is it really appropriate for a character that has full casting abilities and the ability to shape shift into a ton of useful forms for hours per day to have a class feature as powerful as the Druid's Animal Companion?
My big concern about the animal companion is that it allows the druid to fully participate in melee doing as much or more damage as the martial character classes. While the animal companion itself is not necessarily capable of out-fightering a fighter, the animal companion comes with a druid who can easily buff him to be more dangerous than a fighter, all the while the druid can also be intermixing spells to make the class overall very powerful.
Director of Games
|
This has been a concern of mine for a while as I have seen it abused a number of times over the past 8 years. Although I think a number of these abuses were due to splat book items, spells, and Animal Growth (which has already been toned back a bit).
That said, it is an iconic ability and we must walk a very fine line to avoid making this feature worthless.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Well, Dennis and I have been going back and forth about this on the ranger thread (which, incidentally, I'd like to call your attention to), and I think the general consensus was that they need a bit of streamlining. The low end options are too weak at high levels (the beloved riding dog and warhorse being prime examples), whereas the high end options are way too strong (the much-discussed dire tiger and Trex being prime examples).
In general, I think the higher tier or two of potential companions need to be removed as options (does dire shark NEED to be a possibility?), and the last few druid levels need to be enhanced a bit so that they reward players who've kept the same trusty sidekick for 20 levels (so that they look something like +14 HD +14 nat ac and +8 str/dex at level 18). The mid tiers of pets might need to be moved up (maybe dire lion should be level-12 instead of level-9).
Overall though, a lot of players would be really disappointed if the pet were scaled down so much that it was removed as a competent combatant. After all, to be good, they take up valuable druid spells, which makes the druid less of a presence on the battlefield, and they take up resources for equipment.
Aside from that, I think pet-based characters are very popular. At least, in the group I run they are.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I think the Druid's AC is just fine IF we make the druid choose between one of three options:
1. Wild shape
2. Elemental domains
3. Animal companion
I think making a full-on hardcore animal comp an option you take instead of wild shape (or domains). I think it's the gratuitous stacking of all of them on top of the full caster that makes the druid so hardcore.
I think the Druid's AC is just fine IF we make the druid choose between one of three options:
1. Wild shape
2. Elemental domains
3. Animal companionI think making a full-on hardcore animal comp an option you take instead of wild shape (or domains). I think it's the gratuitous stacking of all of them on top of the full caster that makes the druid so hardcore.
I love this idea... didn't I suggest it a while ago ;)
I would go a tiny bit further and suggest that the upper end Animal Companions be seriously reviewed and sanity checked. One easy and logical choice IMO is no ACs larger than Large Sized. I know logistics are rarely taken into account but how on earth would you feed a T-Rex or Dire Shark Animal Companion? (I know, I know "Very carefully").
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I think the Druid's AC is just fine IF we make the druid choose between one of three options:
1. Wild shape
2. Elemental domains
3. Animal companionI think making a full-on hardcore animal comp an option you take instead of wild shape (or domains). I think it's the gratuitous stacking of all of them on top of the full caster that makes the druid so hardcore.
I love this idea... didn't I suggest it a while ago ;)
I would go a tiny bit further and suggest that the upper end Animal Companions be seriously reviewed and sanity checked. One easy and logical choice IMO is no ACs larger than Large Sized. I know logistics are rarely taken into account but how on earth would you feed a T-Rex or Dire Shark Animal Companion? (I know, I know "Very carefully").
Oh, beat me to it!
It is a reasonable question to ask, and one that is generally hand-waved away.
Perhaps a note should be made in the AC ability description as to how much upkeep an AC should require to be healthy?
PS - I wouldn't mind capping ACs at size Large.
This has been a concern of mine for a while as I have seen it abused a number of times over the past 8 years. Although I think a number of these abuses were due to splat book items, spells, and Animal Growth (which has already been toned back a bit).
That said, it is an iconic ability and we must walk a very fine line to avoid making this feature worthless.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Druid happens to be one of those classes that my players have neither tried playing nor even playtesting under the Pathfinder rules yet. As such, I will mostly refrain from commenting on the class and cannot comment on the power of Druid animal companions as they feature in the Pathfinder RPG at all, but I would like to point out, that other classes have been provided with alternate options for getting rid of the walking menagerie. Perhaps a druid could get something similar as an alternative choice to taking an animal companion - I don't know maybe some kind of herbalism abilities (perhaps good at healing and a couple of other things, but not practical during combat itself), or something else you think appropriate.
|
I think the Druid's AC is just fine IF we make the druid choose between one of three options:
1. Wild shape
2. Elemental domains
3. Animal companionI think making a full-on hardcore animal comp an option you take instead of wild shape (or domains). I think it's the gratuitous stacking of all of them on top of the full caster that makes the druid so hardcore.
1. Is basically useless aside for disguise check to scout or some water adventure(yeah when is the last time you seen that?) and once in awhile utility.
2. Meh3. Only thing worthwhile left...
I apologize up front for being off topic...
I like the three choices. Why? When we get to the Wizard forum I have a matching trio to propose.
1) Pick a school
2) Pick a bonded item
3) Pick a familiar
So your three pronged Druid will fit nicely with my three pronged Wizard.
Cheers
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
1. Is basically useless aside for disguise check to scout or some water adventure(yeah when is the last time you seen that?) and once in awhile utility.I think the Druid's AC is just fine IF we make the druid choose between one of three options:
1. Wild shape
2. Elemental domains
3. Animal companionI think making a full-on hardcore animal comp an option you take instead of wild shape (or domains). I think it's the gratuitous stacking of all of them on top of the full caster that makes the druid so hardcore.
Seen lots of water adventures. In fact, most of the entire adventure path I'm getting to the end of has dealt with water adventures.
And if you think WS in PF is useless I would submit that you're either not very creative with it or just have a different valuation of what's useful and what's useless.
2. Meh
I don't disagree with you too much here, but it is one of the options PF has presented for druids.
3. Only thing worthwhile left...
Then you've found the perfect choice for your druid!
Druid happens to be one of those classes that my players have neither tried playing nor even playtesting under the Pathfinder rules yet. As such, I will mostly refrain from commenting on the class and cannot comment on the power of Druid animal companions as they feature in the Pathfinder RPG at all, but I would like to point out, that other classes have been provided with alternate options for getting rid of the walking menagerie. Perhaps a druid could get something similar as an alternative choice to taking an animal companion - I don't know maybe some kind of herbalism abilities (perhaps good at healing and a couple of other things, but not practical during combat itself), or something else you think appropriate.This has been a concern of mine for a while as I have seen it abused a number of times over the past 8 years. Although I think a number of these abuses were due to splat book items, spells, and Animal Growth (which has already been toned back a bit).
That said, it is an iconic ability and we must walk a very fine line to avoid making this feature worthless.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I just want to clarify what I meant - elemental domains are nowhere near equal the animal companion...
|
|
This has been a concern of mine for a while as I have seen it abused a number of times over the past 8 years. Although I think a number of these abuses were due to splat book items, spells, and Animal Growth (which has already been toned back a bit).
That said, it is an iconic ability and we must walk a very fine line to avoid making this feature worthless.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I think part of this can be solved by limited the druid to using one natural weapon per iterative attack. So no 4th level druids shaping into a bear and getting claw-claw-bite. They are only good enough to use one - one of their choice, but only one.
I apologize up front for being off topic...
I like the three choices. Why? When we get to the Wizard forum I have a matching trio to propose.
1) Pick a school
2) Pick a bonded item
3) Pick a familiarSo your three pronged Druid will fit nicely with my three pronged Wizard.
Cheers
Umm....that's terrible. By no means are those three remotely equal in power.
|
|
1. Is basically useless aside for disguise check to scout or some water adventure(yeah when is the last time you seen that?) and once in awhile utility.I think the Druid's AC is just fine IF we make the druid choose between one of three options:
1. Wild shape
2. Elemental domains
3. Animal companionI think making a full-on hardcore animal comp an option you take instead of wild shape (or domains). I think it's the gratuitous stacking of all of them on top of the full caster that makes the druid so hardcore.
Seen lots of water adventures. In fact, most of the entire adventure path I'm getting to the end of has dealt with water adventures.
And if you think WS in PF is useless I would submit that you're either not very creative with it or just have a different valuation of what's useful and what's useless.
2. MehI don't disagree with you too much here, but it is one of the options PF has presented for druids.
3. Only thing worthwhile left...Then you've found the perfect choice for your druid!
Umm No I want my Shifter druid back and not a pokemon trainer. I have yet to play a water adventure aside pirates attacking the ship you're on. For the most part it's only worth it to switch to smallest bird so you can get dex bonus, size ac, ability to fly and cast.
If you want to melee barring invisble creatures you're better off to just continuing wearing your armor and using manufactured weapons. Your Str enhancement bonus could be replaced by items bonus and cheaper weapon bonus (compare to amulet of mighty fist). Then there are opponents that have damage reduction other then magic or alignment...
1) Pick a school
2) Pick a bonded item
3) Pick a familiar
So your three pronged Druid will fit nicely with my three pronged Wizard.
But Wizards choose a school AND choose an item/Familiar. Not one of the three.
Wild Shape has already been nerfed (it's Stat Boosts should really be changed to INHERENT, IMHO)
I don't think the Animal Companion is too much. Is it really THAT much more powerful than a Cohort? (certainly not a Caster Cohort)
Leadership is ONE Feat. I don't think allowing the Druid an ability that is better than ONE Feat is too much...
...Especially as Druids don't receive ANY bonus Feats.
The only change I really see is either not letting the Druid gain the AC at 1st level, or making a new tier of low-level AC's that are more on-par with a Familiar, so a 1st level Druid won't gain the signifigant combat advantage a Wolf offers, for instance. The Companion Tables can simply be edited to provide less "Powerful" Companions, if that's still deemed an issue.
But Wizards choose a school AND choose an item/Familiar. Not one of the three.
Wild Shape has already been nerfed (it's Stat Boosts should really be changed to INHERENT, IMHO)
I don't think the Animal Companion is too much. Is it really THAT much more powerful than a Cohort? (certainly not a Caster Cohort)
Leadership is ONE Feat. I don't think allowing the Druid an ability that is better than ONE Feat is too much...
...Especially as Druids don't receive ANY bonus Feats.The only change I really see is either not letting the Druid gain the AC at 1st level, or making a new tier of low-level AC's that are more on-par with a Familiar, so a 1st level Druid won't gain the signifigant combat advantage a Wolf offers, for instance. The Companion Tables can simply be edited to provide less "Powerful" Companions, if that's still deemed an issue.
Yes, I completely agree with this. Anyone can take leadership. Not to mention, druid spells really aren't that great compared to wizard or cleric spells. Getting rid of the higher end pets seems like a reasonable solution (Though, again, that's only fair if the lower end pets are buffed up to at least survive at high levels).
I think there's a lot of understandable anti-druid sentiment since the 3.0/3.5 developers...well, I don't know how the previously existing druid was deemed balanced, but oh well. Anyway, I'm glad wildshape got nerfed, but, honestly this feels like a few vocal posters want to overkill the druid nerfs.
1) Pick a school
2) Pick a bonded item
3) Pick a familiar
This is fine with me. Bring it up when the time comes and I'll back you up.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Yes, I completely agree with this. Anyone can take leadership. Not to mention, druid spells really aren't that great compared to wizard or cleric spells. Getting rid of the higher end pets seems like a reasonable solution (Though, again, that's only fair if the lower end pets are buffed up to at least survive at high levels).But Wizards choose a school AND choose an item/Familiar. Not one of the three.
Wild Shape has already been nerfed (it's Stat Boosts should really be changed to INHERENT, IMHO)
I don't think the Animal Companion is too much. Is it really THAT much more powerful than a Cohort? (certainly not a Caster Cohort)
Leadership is ONE Feat. I don't think allowing the Druid an ability that is better than ONE Feat is too much...
...Especially as Druids don't receive ANY bonus Feats.The only change I really see is either not letting the Druid gain the AC at 1st level, or making a new tier of low-level AC's that are more on-par with a Familiar, so a 1st level Druid won't gain the signifigant combat advantage a Wolf offers, for instance. The Companion Tables can simply be edited to provide less "Powerful" Companions, if that's still deemed an issue.
To this I will only respectfully say WTF? Druid spells rock the house! They happily kick backsides and take names with any spellchuckers.
I think there's a lot of understandable anti-druid sentiment since the 3.0/3.5 developers...well, I don't know how the previously existing druid was deemed balanced, but oh well. Anyway, I'm glad wildshape got nerfed, but, honestly this feels like a few vocal posters want to overkill the druid nerfs.
I dunno if it's overkill or not. Druid and cleric have a long ways to go to come back down to earth, so it's a lot of brainstorming, and we'll see what finally comes out in the wash as for as reasonable corrections.
1. Is basically useless aside for disguise check to scout or some water adventure(yeah when is the last time you seen that?) and once in awhile utility.
2. Meh
3. Only thing worthwhile left...
If you think the ability to walk through walls, fly continuously, swim and breath water, or stand in the heart of the hottest fire unscathed for hours per day at sixth level in addition to being a full caster is "basically useless" then I'm not sure what to say to you.
As Jason said stick with the animal companion.
This is fine with me. Bring it up when the time comes and I'll back you up.1) Pick a school
2) Pick a bonded item
3) Pick a familiar
Do you just really hate pets or something? It seems like every post is either 'nerf the pet' or 'get rid of the pet'. WOTC DID just come out with a shiny new edition that got rid of the pesky animals under some 'economy of actions' rationale...If you hate characters with pets so much, don't allow them in your games.
In all seriousness, the familiar and bonded item are nothing compared to the school bonus. It's basically just taking something away from wizards. Which, again, incidentally, will lead to less players with pets....
|
|
I think there's a lot of understandable anti-druid sentiment since the 3.0/3.5 developers...well, I don't know how the previously existing druid was deemed balanced, but oh well. Anyway, I'm glad wildshape got nerfed, but, honestly this feels like a few vocal posters want to overkill the druid nerfs.
I partially agree (as I believed it was nerfed too far...). And I want to see the next post as the forum bug is hiding it atm >.>
I think the Druid's AC is just fine IF we make the druid choose between one of three options:
1. Wild shape
2. Elemental domains
3. Animal companionI think making a full-on hardcore animal comp an option you take instead of wild shape (or domains). I think it's the gratuitous stacking of all of them on top of the full caster that makes the druid so hardcore.
No.
I apologize up front for being off topic...
I like the three choices. Why? When we get to the Wizard forum I have a matching trio to propose.
1) Pick a school
2) Pick a bonded item
3) Pick a familiarSo your three pronged Druid will fit nicely with my three pronged Wizard.
Cheers
No.
These suggestions are bad, as they are not at all equal in power. Folks, casters are overpowered. The solution, however, is not to make their class features absolute crap. What you're suggesting is essentially making the cleric choose between:
1. Spontaneous casting of cure/inflict.
2. Turning/rebuking.
3. Domains.
It's bad. Please stop posting this nonsense.
I think there's a lot of understandable anti-druid sentiment since the 3.0/3.5 developers...well, I don't know how the previously existing druid was deemed balanced, but oh well. Anyway, I'm glad wildshape got nerfed, but, honestly this feels like a few vocal posters want to overkill the druid nerfs.
There were a lot of bad feats floating out their regarding Wild Shape that caused severe problems when combined with the Master Of Many Forms Prestige Class. Given the fact that this PRC was already prone to being unbalanced and was unwieldy to implement didn't generate much goodwill for either Druids or people that like to play combat shape-changers in general. Most of the people that I have spoken with that loathe Druids so do because of the egregious abuses of a few players that dabbled in this prestige class as opposed to Druids with Animal Companions.
I think the concept of having an Animal Companion makes sense. The real problem is giving it enough power to stay alive without making the class too powerful. Ranger Animal Companions are little more then one-hit meat shields, so nerfing them down to that level isn't feasible. Even as they are right now, an Animal Companion will never be as good as a Cohort gained with the Leadership Feat.
I believe that Psychic_Robot has already suggested simply toning down or removing some of the higher-level pet selections in another thread within this sub-section of the forums. This may be the best option to consider to resolve play-balance issues regarding this class feature.
Right, an Animal Companion doesn't compare to ONE Feat: Leadership.
(and the Druid doesn't even gain low-level followers, like a PACK of Wolves at High Level. I think that would be APPROPRIATE, actually.)
So, change it so you can't gain a Wolf Companion at 1st level, and it's pretty good...
Some of the "high level" Animal Companions are powerful in their own right, but so easily disabled/bypassed by almost anything at that level, so I don't think they're really such a problem. (I certainly don't see how the Animal Companion can be such a problem, when the Summon Nature's Ally spells exist - if they AC is a problem, why isn't SNA? the AC is WAY weaker than SNA, obviously...)
Right, an Animal Companion doesn't compare to ONE Feat: Leadership.
Rather than comparing one broken thing to another why not talk about the class on it's own and we can beat up on Leadership when the time comes.
So, change it so you can't gain a Wolf Companion at 1st level, and it's pretty good...
Some of the "high level" Animal Companions are powerful in their own right, but so easily disabled/bypassed by almost anything at that level, so I don't think they're really such a problem. (I certainly don't see how the Animal Companion can be such a problem, when the Summon Nature's Ally spells exist - if they AC is a problem, why isn't SNA? the AC is WAY weaker than SNA, obviously...)
#1 SNA goes away after X rounds, AC sticks around all the time.
#2 Can't hang magic items on an SNA#3 Can't cast all day buffs or 10 minutes/ level buffs on an SNA
#4 Can't share spells with an SNA
#5 AC is there at the beginning of every combat
#6 SNA must be cast every combat and you only have a few of your highest level spells which are the only ones comparable to the AC
What do you mean high level ACs are so easily disabled/ bypassed? I'm not sure there is a lot of melee creatures that can bypass a mega-raptor with Animal Growth, Bulls Strength, and Greater Magic Fang cast on it (in particular with the new DR changes... hmm).
It's bad. Please stop posting this nonsense.
Your post was self descriptive.
Other than that perhaps you have something constructive to add?
#1-6
Sure, that's fairly obvious,
my point was simply the AC is WAY weaker than the SNA options. The AC being around all day gives no benefit 99% of the day.Yes, ACs might work great against melee opponents, I guess I didn't clarify I was thinking about the REST of the opponents you'll be facing then.
The difference of AC vs. Familiars means AC's low Saves present a great target for Opponents with Dominate (even Sleep on your T-Rex gives a good chance of squishing your whole Party except the Rogue) The thing is, using all your buffs, etc on your AC to keep it effective is spells you could otherwise cast, right? I just don't see it as that different from a Leadership Cohort - Whoops, sorry ;-)
I just don't see the AC horribly overpowering the Druid class.
[/shrug]
Right, an Animal Companion doesn't compare to ONE Feat: Leadership.Rather than comparing one broken thing to another why not talk about the class on it's own and we can beat up on Leadership when the time comes.
Actually, I think there's a good point to be made that no one's made so far.
A party with 4 PCs and a Leadership cohort is not "broken" any more than a party with 5 PCs is.
A party with 4 PCs and an animal companion is not "broken" any more than a party with 4 PCs and a tame animal that's not a class feature.
If you look at Leadership (or an animal companion) in the sense that it should be equal in power to one feat (or one class feature), it'll look overly powerful. But if you look at them as asking the DM for permission to add an NPC to your party (in lieu of another PC), they're probably under-powered.
|
After years of playing games of different levels, I am the only player at my table that I can recall using a druid with an animal companion. We've had other druids, but they preferred to use alternate class options over the AC, because it always seemed weak to them.
The one time I used an animal companion, it was a giant crocodile with Animal Growth cast at the start of the main combat; it pretty easily grappled the BBEG that 4 PC's could only hit maybe once a round put together. So yeah, I agree that the animal companion should be moved from 1st level and that the highest current choices be removed from the regular list. Give the 'mundane' choices like warhorse some more bonuses at high level, too.
Actually, I think there's a good point to be made that no one's made so far.
A party with 4 PCs and a Leadership cohort is not "broken" any more than a party with 5 PCs is.
So should every member of the group should be able to bring along an NPC? I suppose this could be a fix, give everyone a Pet or Cohort. Kind of makes combat in small rooms or with large parties a bit of a mess. We have 6 players and things are cramped with 2 rangers and wolves which tend to hang back a lot. I couldn't imagine dealing with 4 more 'pets' or cohorts.
A party with 4 PCs and an animal companion is not "broken" any more than a party with 4 PCs and a tame animal that's not a class feature.
Tame animals don't advance in level as the party does, nor can they share spells. It's also much more difficult to acquire exotic tame animals. I recognize that a DM can make a druid acquire his animal companions but that is outside the rules.
If there were a class that was truly 'pet based' I would be ok with it, then the class could be balanced around it. The druid is a 9 level spell caster and shape shifter.
A party with 4 PCs and a Leadership cohort is not "broken" any more than a party with 5 PCs is.So should every member of the group should be able to bring along an NPC?
Sure, if the DM and the players agree. My point is that it's not really one person "bringing along" an NPC; presumably the whole party benefits equally from having an extra NPC (or 4, or 8) around.
To be perfectly clear, when I DM I really treat NPCs as NPCs; I don't give one player two PCs just because he has a familiar or animal companion.
This has been a concern of mine for a while as I have seen it abused a number of times over the past 8 years. Although I think a number of these abuses were due to splat book items, spells, and Animal Growth (which has already been toned back a bit).
That said, it is an iconic ability and we must walk a very fine line to avoid making this feature worthless.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
One thing I would limit are the number of magic items a player can equip on his animal companion. Currently they have the same slots as a human(iod) character: hat, lenses, necklace, cloak, armor, shirt, belt, boots, armbands, and gloves. Most human items make no sense for an animal to willingly wear. Reducing animal item slots to collars, barding, saddles and one miscelleanous item (horseshoes, earings, or leashes, etc.) will help reduce the rampant abuse.
To be perfectly clear, when I DM I really treat NPCs as NPCs; I don't give one player two PCs just because he has a familiar or animal companion.
I don't think most DMs run their games this way. It is arguably the better way to run things but DMs often have a plate-full of things to deal with and running a players animal companion or cohort is one more task on an already full workload.
I play druids a lot (but I’m not one in real-life!). I feel Pathfinders’ wild-shape/polymorph solution fixes many abuses of the class but I do agree that the Animal Companion as-is still can be a problem when abused.
The animal item slots situation has to be resolved (this could also help some possible polymorph corner cases).
What I observed about an Animal Companion being “The fighter of the party” is that it happened from low to mid-level and more so just after the “+2HD and cie. upgrade” every 3 levels and that the druid’s levels before the upgrades made the companion less serious of a threat. Maybe a scaling of 1HD and cie. 2 levels out of 3 (2nd, 3rd,5th,6th,8th, 9th, etc.) would be better and would allow to space abilities gained by the companion.
I agree that Huge and up sized animal shouldn’t be on the list at all, but I would like to have an option to use smaller lower (fractional) CR animals and gain a “level bonus” on the progression of such animals.
Hogarth: I feel the main (mechanical) difference between NPCs and cohorts/animal companions/mounts is the fact that they don’t take a share of the XP awards the party gets so they level-up without slowing down the rest of the party. Of course availability of exotic pets changes a few other things and maybe should be ruled on in the equipment or treasure sections.
One thing I would limit are the number of magic items a player can equip on his animal companion. Currently they have the same slots as a human(iod) character: hat, lenses, necklace, cloak, armor, shirt, belt, boots, armbands, and gloves. Most human items make no sense for an animal to willingly wear. Reducing animal item slots to collars, barding, saddles and one miscelleanous item (horseshoes, earings, or leashes, etc.) will help reduce the rampant abuse.
This sounds like a good fix. Admittedly, in a lot of games I've played, the pets don't get very many items, as few of our DMs allow Sword-mart magic item shops. But, really, I've always thought the idea of a dog earring was silly. Only having 3 or 4 slots is a good nerf (and, it's always been questionable anyway).
To be perfectly clear, when I DM I really treat NPCs as NPCs; I don't give one player two PCs just because he has a familiar or animal companion.I don't think most DMs run their games this way. It is arguably the better way to run things but DMs often have a plate-full of things to deal with and running a players animal companion or cohort is one more task on an already full workload.
Well, honestly, that is how it's written in the rules. It sounds like maybe some of the problems you've had with it in the past were caused by your DM not running it properly. I mean, no wonder there were issues when the pet wasn't even being run according to logistical (most dungeon halls are 5-10 feet wide) or tactical (ACs can't use the complex tactics a human can) constraints.
The thing is that, like leadership, it's up to the DM to say 'no you can't do that', or to at least play up the side effects of doing something. If the DM won't look on the chart and say 'No, you can't a Dire tiger, you couldn't find one, and it would be too difficult to take care of.', or they won't play up the then it sounds like it's more the fault of the DM and less a problem with the rules. The thing is that for players who don't abuse it, which is actually MOST players IME, the kind of serious nerfs you seem to want suck a lot of fun out of the game, and take away what WAS a heavily-enjoyable and heavily used option. You shouldn't be proposing that other players lose something that they like just because you don't like it, or because you've had bad experiences with it.
I really don't need the people at paizo doing my DMing FOR me because some DMs can't say no, or don't understand that RAW games are problematic. And, frankly, it's a lot easier for me to say "no, you can't take that" than to say "umm...actually, we're using the animal companion rules from Beta, go ahead and flip to page XX of this old pdf", which is what a lot of DMs will have to do to make their players happy.
Iconic how? Because they had it in 2nd edition? What's our iconic source for 'spellcaster with a non-familiar animal buddy'?
Now, I can see an animal companion being 'iconic' for the ranger (if anything can be considered iconic for a class which has mutated from Fighter/Mage to Nature Guy with Swords) - in the 'a boy and his dog' sort of way. But druid? I can't think of any relevant source material here - even the D+D book Druid I can think of has no real animal companion (from RA Salvatore's Cleric Quintet - Pikel iirc).
Proposal:
Strip Druids of their AC. Give the Ranger a real AC ability - it might make him relevant (give him some buff spells for it as well).
It's iconic as the druid exists now, I think. Not to mention, there's no logical reason for a guy who 'spends his time in nature' to get an AC when a guy who 'is mystically bound to nature' does not.
I'm sorry, but I think too many people are attached to the feature to let it be ranger only. I think they BOTH need full AC progression (with some high-end options removed and some low-end options buffed).
Hogarth: I feel the main (mechanical) difference between NPCs and cohorts/animal companions/mounts is the fact that they don’t take a share of the XP awards the party gets so they level-up without slowing down the rest of the party.
Well, I don't mess around with tracking individual XP in my games, so there's no real difference in my case. If the party wants an NPC to tag along, I add one NPC's worth of challenge to some of the encounters. Nuff said.
To be perfectly clear, when I DM I really treat NPCs as NPCs; I don't give one player two PCs just because he has a familiar or animal companion.I don't think most DMs run their games this way. It is arguably the better way to run things but DMs often have a plate-full of things to deal with and running a players animal companion or cohort is one more task on an already full workload.
Letting the player run Animal Companions as a full PC basically let's them ignore the fact the Animal is of low Intelligence and can't communicate completely with it's master. Familiar's are supposed to be superior in this regard. If the player is reasonable and uses the Handle Animal skill as intended, mostly just using specific skills they've taught their Companion, & not mixing PC knowledge with AC knowledge, then it's a nice break for the DM to not have to handle the AC. This is the same as NORMAL riding mounts/ trained animals.
But doing that is dependent on trust, and shouldn't be depended upon. A Player should have no interest in whether they themselves run the AC or the DM does, it should only be a convenience for the DM. If running it themselves provides any benefit, that's against the spirit and wording of the rules.
Iconic how? Because they had it in 2nd edition? What's our iconic source for 'spellcaster with a non-familiar animal buddy'?
Iconic because 3.5 has been around for the last 7 years giving druid players a sense of entitlement.
Proposal:
Strip Druids of their AC. Give the Ranger a real AC ability - it might make him relevant (give him some buff spells for it as well).
Works for me. Druid with WildShape plus casting is a nice class, probably wouldn't be as popular as the monster that was the druid under 3.5 but the people who play it will be more likely to play because they want to RP a druid not because of the uber power from the class.
Letting the player run Animal Companions as a full PC basically let's them ignore the fact the Animal is of low Intelligence and can't communicate completely with it's master. Familiar's are supposed to be superior in this regard. If the player is reasonable and uses the Handle Animal skill as intended, mostly just using specific skills they've taught their Companion, & not mixing PC knowledge with AC knowledge, then it's a nice break for the DM to not have to handle the AC. This is the same as NORMAL riding mounts/ trained animals.To be perfectly clear, when I DM I really treat NPCs as NPCs; I don't give one player two PCs just because he has a familiar or animal companion.I don't think most DMs run their games this way. It is arguably the better way to run things but DMs often have a plate-full of things to deal with and running a players animal companion or cohort is one more task on an already full workload.
If I suggested that the AC was played as a full PC that is not what I intended. The AC is as effective as a PC in melee. You suggest the animal can't communicate effectively with the druid but the rules more or less contradict that. Druids can handle their animal companion as a free action. Yes, it is a creature of limited intelligence but that doesn't change the fact that the druid can direct it within the limits of it's training as a free action. Nor does it change the fact that a druid with a mega raptor can have his animal companion charge, pounce with 5 attacks, and cast his highest level spell in the first round of combat. There is no other class which can do anything remotely that powerful.
But doing that is dependent on trust, and shouldn't be depended upon. A Player should have no interest in whether they themselves run the AC or the DM does, it should only be a convenience for the DM. If running it themselves provides any benefit, that's against the spirit and wording of the rules.
It has nothing to do with trust. The rules back this behavior. Whether the DM is rolling the dice or not the druid is controlling the AC using free actions... not even a swift or immediate action.
Instructions the AC would probably not get:
- "Ignore all the mooks and charge the guy in the back with the red shield"
- "Attack the Wizard over there"
Things the AC does get:
- "Charge" (and pounce on the first enemy)
- "Flank"
- "Guard Me"
- "Stand Down"
Yes I get that ACs are 'pets', that does not change their inherent usefulness much though, nor does it change the fact that they are essentially extensions of the druid, which is already a powerful class.
Iconic how? Because they had it in 2nd edition? What's our iconic source for 'spellcaster with a non-familiar animal buddy'?Iconic because 3.5 has been around for the last 7 years giving druid players a sense of entitlement.
Works for me. Druid with WildShape plus casting is a nice class, probably wouldn't be as popular as the monster that was the druid under 3.5 but the people who play it will be more likely to play because they want to RP a druid not because of the uber power from the class.Proposal:
Strip Druids of their AC. Give the Ranger a real AC ability - it might make him relevant (give him some buff spells for it as well).
Again, you just seem to dislike players having pets, and it seems you actively dislike druids, which might explain your completely irrational urge to overnerf them and screw players who DON'T break them. So don't allow them or ask your DM to disallow them, don't play one, and call it a day. But maybe you should stop posting on a forum for people who actually want to fix the druid.
Instructions the AC would probably not get:
* "Ignore all the mooks and charge the guy in the back with the red shield"
* "Attack the Wizard over there"
Because those things would TOTALLY not contribute to its usefulness.
Has anyone else noticed that, in this board, the only pets that have been demonstrated to 'break' or even come close to the usefulness of a fighter are the high-end options? And, in fact, the stuff you can get early in the game gets too weak to be useful later on?
It sounds to me like the solution is relatively clear.