The player wants his new companion, he selects it from the alternate list, has his player pray for 24 hours and it shows up. Doesn't matter where you are, you can be on a 1/2 mile square island in the middle of the ocean and whistle up T-Rex. Presumably it would swim in.
Although the rules regarding summoning an Animal Companion are admittedly vague, I've NEVER seen anyone run a campaign with AC summoning rules that were that lax. It's been generally accepted in the games that I've been in that you have to go to a geographic location where the animal exists to perform the summoning and that your Animal Companion may eventually leave you if you bring it into environments that significantly deviate from their natural habitat (i.e. polar bears in the jungle). Summoning a T-Rex from the ocean? Kind of silly.
Although the rules regarding summoning an Animal Companion are admittedly vague, I've NEVER seen anyone run a campaign with AC summoning rules that were that lax. It's been generally accepted in the games that I've been in that you have to go to a geographic location where the animal exists to perform the summoning and that your Animal Companion may eventually leave you if you bring it into environments that significantly deviate from their natural habitat (i.e. polar bears in the jungle). Summoning a T-Rex from the ocean? Kind of silly.
Then you have been in a lot of campaigns with similar house rules.
If there is some intention to limit this power to certain locations it should say it expressly in the rules.
Can you only 'summon' creature with SNA when they would normally be local to the area? What about 'Summon' Monster? It doesn't expressly say where the creatures come from in the Animal Companion description, it doesn't say "You Call a Creature..." It says "If a druid releases her companion from service, she may gain a new one by performing a ceremony requiring 24 uninterrupted hours of prayer. This ceremony can also replace an animal companion that has perished."
Don't get me wrong, I agree that there should be some sanity check in there and as a DM I typically house rule exactly the way you do. The apparent difference is that I recognize the fact that I'm going outside the rules where you seem to feel it's somehow in the rules when it quite clearly is not.
If the intent is for some sort of hardship to be involved in gaining a familiar then it should be put in the rules expressly not given to the DM or player to guess the designers intent.
You're assuming that the opposing party will only want to kill your pet. Animals have poor Will saves and make great targets for enemy enchanters. PC classes might have poor Will Saves, but they usually have the magical items and feats to offset this problem.
Again, the enemy is expending resources trying to eliminate your animal companion when those resources would otherwise be used on you or your party.
Consider, what are the consequences of a dead AC? Salvage the Magic Items, spend 24 hours and it's replaced. What are the consequences of a dead PC?Are you going to be able to summon that Mega-Raptor in the Underdark? In the frozen tundra? While you're gallivanting around The Abyss? Most DMs would probably give you a negative on that one.
Yes, according to the rules this is entirely possible. "Most DMs" would be wrong because the rules support exactly this. READ THE RULES. Don't tell me what 'a reasonable DM', or 'my DM', or 'You' would rule, read the actual rules and explain to me how this works, I'm just not seeing this. What I read in a single paragraph that is quite clear is the druid prays for 24 hours and 'gains' a familiar. It does not talk about how it happens. The wording does not even support your idea that the druid is 'calling' the familiar. Please show me something that says I'm wrong or let this drop.
I'd also like to point out that most of the players
* and *
Believe it or not, some Druids are perfectly satisfied ....
Please. We are talking about rules. Not about player psychology. Just because most players don't abuse something doesn't mean you should leave a gaping hole there for it to be abused by the ones who do.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that there should be some sanity check in there and as a DM I typically house rule exactly the way you do. The apparent difference is that I recognize the fact that I'm going outside the rules where you seem to feel it's somehow in the rules when it quite clearly is not.
If the intent is for some sort of hardship to be involved in gaining a familiar then it should be put in the rules expressly not given to the DM or player to guess the designers intent.
I posit that despite the fact that it is not expressly laid out in the rules as such, any reasonable person would not blindly interpret the rules thusly. I have never played in any games or encountered any players that think it would be reasonable to summon forth a Polar Bear as an animal companion in a steaming jungle. I'd rather err on the side of reason then embrace a literal interpretation of a poorly worded mechanic. And I sure as hell wouldn't want to play with anyone that thought that thought otherwise.
Do I believe that a clarification of the rules is necessary? Certainly. Do I think that it's fair to invalidate the entire idea that Druids should have Animal Companions because of this? No. This is something that can easily be fixed and more then likely will be in the final Pathfinder release.
You're assuming that the opposing party will only want to kill your pet. Animals have poor Will saves and make great targets for enemy enchanters. PC classes might have poor Will Saves, but they usually have the magical items and feats to offset this problem.Again, the enemy is expending resources trying to eliminate your animal companion when those resources would otherwise be used on you or your party.
But if they successfully enchant your Animal Companion and turn it against you, they have actually gained additional resources that they can leverage to try and murder you. This issue isn't as pronounced with more intelligent cohorts and actual player characters because 1) they often start with better Will saves and 2) they can improve their Will saves through the judicious application of feats and the acquisition of equipment. That's the reason why the first magic item that most Druids and Rangers purchase for their Animal Companion (and sometimes the only one) is a magical item that gives them bonuses to their saving throws.
You wanted to know how Animal Companions are worse then casting Summon Nature's Ally in certain situations, and I believe that having your pet Megaraptor gnawing your face off is one of them. Is it a situation that you may encounter often? No. But it's still worth considering.
Consider, what are the consequences of a dead AC? Salvage the Magic Items, spend 24 hours and it's replaced. What are the consequences of a dead PC?
Are you going to be able to summon that Mega-Raptor in the Underdark? In the frozen tundra? While you're gallivanting around The Abyss? Most DMs would probably give you a negative on that one.Yes, according to the rules this is entirely possible. "Most DMs" would be wrong because the rules support exactly this. READ THE RULES. Don't tell me what 'a reasonable DM', or 'my DM', or 'You' would rule, read the actual rules and explain to me how this works, I'm just not seeing this. What I read in a single paragraph that is quite clear is the druid prays for 24 hours and 'gains' a familiar. It does not talk about how it happens. The wording does not even support your idea that the druid is 'calling' the familiar. Please show me something that says I'm wrong or let this drop.
In the 3.0 SRD, Druids did not have a "Nature's Bond" class ability, They were instead given the opportunity to start the game with an Animal Companion that they had befriended via the use of the Animal Friendship spell. The text of this spell reads as follows:
Enchantment (Charm) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Drd 1, Rgr 1
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One animal
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
The character wins the loyalty of an animal. The spell functions only if the character actually wishes to be the animal's friend. If the character is not willing to treat the animal as a the spell fails. An animal's loyalty is natural (not magical) and lasting.
The character can teach the befriended animal three specific tricks or tasks for each point of Intelligence it possesses. They cannot be complex (complex tricks require the Handle Animal skill).
At most, the character can have animal friends whose Hit Dice total no more than twice the character's caster level (though the demands of adventuring generally restrict a character to half that number).
The character may dismiss animal friends to enable the character to befriend new ones.
In the absence of any clarification regarding the exact process of using the Nature's Bond class ability to acquire an Animal Companion, I believe that it is reasonable to rely upon this spell as an indicator of how the game designers originally intended for this class ability to function. I believe that it clearly demonstrates that the Druid or Ranger is expected to find an animal in its natural habitat and befriend it as opposed to simply summoning it forth from the ether to do their bidding.
So tell me: what precedent do YOU have to back up your interpretation of the Animal Companion acquisition process?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Are you going to be able to summon that Mega-Raptor in the Underdark? In the frozen tundra? While you're gallivanting around The Abyss? Most DMs would probably give you a negative on that one. But on the flip side, if you're willing to to go on a dangerous quest in the fetid jungles of the land beyond time to get that Mega-Raptor, I say more power to you.
The problem with this limitation is that it is trivial for a druid of a level to get a dino pet.
Transport via plants there, summon, TvP back. 24 hours and two spells. Badoom, badabing.
I'd also like to point out that most of the players that I've met that have played Druids were awfully attached to their Animal Companions or used them as hooks for role-playing opportunities. We had a Druid in one of our games that had a Bear as an Animal Companion and NEVER used it in combat unless absolutely necessary (twice over the life of the pet) because she valued its life over that of most of the other PCs!
Believe it or not, some Druids are perfectly satisfied to have the same Wolf (or raptor or bat or whatever) that they've had for most of their adventuring careers and are content to see it gain enough abilities to keep it from being one-shotted on their adventures. Sometimes it really IS just about style.
Oh, I believe it.
But, believe it or not, some Druids like to have the most crunchalicious combat beast available to them with their class abilities. When using SNA spells, they tend to call dire lions rather than monkeys and owls, even though both are options. When considering what animal will accompany them on their dangerous adventures, when more vicious combat beasts come along, they release their old compadre back to the wilds and recruit a new killer pet. Nature provides, after all, and they are happy to receive its bounty! It would be cruel to befriend an animal and then drag it around in circumstances where it was likely to die on a moment's notice. Far better, if they were a true friend to the animal, to leave it behind and take a less fragile companion, rather than risking the life of the one that was their true friend.
Look, this is just getting silly, it's a lot of deadlocked arguing back and forth. You guys aren't going to get rid of the companion or nerf it to a noncombat feature, there are too many of us who disagree, including people from Paizo. So, instead of beating your respective heads against a brick wall, work WITH the rest of us to adjust it into an option we can all be happy with. As it stands now, this is becoming an incoherent train to nowhere.
Do I believe that a clarification of the rules is necessary? Certainly. Do I think that it's fair to invalidate the entire idea that Druids should have Animal Companions because of this? No. This is something that can easily be fixed and more then likely will be in the final Pathfinder release.
I would like to see some way to make the druid class rational in power compared to the rest of the classes in the game. Druids power has 3 huge sources of power: Spells, Wildshape (still quite powerful), and the Animal Companion. I've made multiple suggestions on this board to keep the AC, either by changing the rules to make it pass the so called reasonableness test you keep talking about or by making it an optional feature.
Have you read some of the suggestions I've come up with regarding the druid's AC? If I suggested outright 'nuke the AC' I have also suggested several other ways it can be kept and can pass your reasonableness test without resorting to individual DM fiat and house rules.
Do I believe that a clarification of the rules is necessary? Certainly. Do I think that it's fair to invalidate the entire idea that Druids should have Animal Companions because of this? No. This is something that can easily be fixed and more then likely will be in the final Pathfinder release.I would like to see some way to make the druid class rational in power compared to the rest of the classes in the game. Druids power has 3 huge sources of power: Spells, Wildshape (still quite powerful), and the Animal Companion. I've made multiple suggestions on this board to keep the AC, either by changing the rules to make it pass the so called reasonableness test you keep talking about or by making it an optional feature.
Have you read some of the suggestions I've come up with regarding the druid's AC? If I suggested outright 'nuke the AC' I have also suggested several other ways it can be kept and can pass your reasonableness test without resorting to individual DM fiat and house rules.
Well, to be perfectly honest, it seems like you've changed what you've said. You've argued that a druid shouldn't get to be a caster AND a presence on the battlefield, which implies that you want to get rid of or significantly nerf AC, on the other hand, you've argued that we could keep the same feature, but charge feats for the higher tiers, with which some of us have agreed. So, with the several things said, it does get difficult to know exactly what you're pulling for.
So, with the several things said, it does get difficult to know exactly what you're pulling for.
I didn't realize this was a fan club, all along I've been thinking it's about trying to make this a better game.
I didn't realize this was a fan club, all along I've been thinking it's about trying to make this a better game.
Wow, that made no sense at all and was out of context. You could have just said "You're right, Velderan." It would have been faster.
Anyway, instead of just arguing, why don't you name a list of the fixes you propose, and then accept that some of them won't be accepted by the populace because they go too far? That way, we can compromise. Or you can spout silly things like 'Druid players have a sense of entitlement' in the hopes that you'll sound reasonable.
But equally, the rules don't say "the ritual conjures X creature" or whatever.It appears by magic.
Please tell me where it says that. I can't find it.
Sure, I have NPCs sometimes. But if there are 6 players in a group I don't have NPCs. If there are 8 I definitely don't have NPCs tagging along. This is a RULE which says druids have a right to have an NPC at all times. You can use rule 0 to override but that as they say is a house rule.
This is a good point. If I had eight players in my game, I would certainly feel within my rights to say "please: no Leadership cohorts, no armies of undead, no simulacra, no golems, and maybe a maximum of one animal companion". That's not "Rule 0" (in the sense of saying "the rules works the way I say it works"), that's just a polite request for my (the DM's) sanity. It's ridiculous to think that if you have 8 players who want to be druids, then the DM's hands are tied and the rules are to blame.
Please tell me where it says that. I can't find it.But equally, the rules don't say "the ritual conjures X creature" or whatever.It appears by magic.
That's the problem, it doesn't say anything. It's whatever the GM thinks at the time. "It appears by magic" Is just as valid an interpretation of the rules as "You call it and if one is within a days walk it appears".
Sure, I have NPCs sometimes. But if there are 6 players in a group I don't have NPCs. If there are 8 I definitely don't have NPCs tagging along. This is a RULE which says druids have a right to have an NPC at all times. You can use rule 0 to override but that as they say is a house rule.This is a good point. If I had eight players in my game, I would certainly feel within my rights to say "please: no Leadership cohorts, no armies of undead, no simulacra, no golems, and maybe a maximum of one animal companion". That's not "Rule 0" (in the sense of saying "the rules works the way I say it works"), that's just a polite request for my (the DM's) sanity. It's ridiculous to think that if you have 8 players who want to be druids, then the DM's hands are tied and the rules are to blame.
Maybe it is ridiculous, but I could easily see a party with 2 druids, 2 rangers, plus 2-4 other party members.
I guess ultimately :
Animal Companion == Non-Player 'Character' that the player directs (DM controls) that is written into the script whether the DM wants it or not.
NPC == Non-Player 'Character' that the DM directs and controls that is written into the script by DM as the situation mandates. With an NPC the DM MAY give some direction to the player.
Cohort == Non-Player 'Character' that the DM directs and controls that is written into the script (unless the DM bans it). Generally DMs allow players to direct cohorts much of the time.
Seems like a subtle difference between the three but it is quite significant. If the AC were a feat then at least it would cost the druid some resources the way the cohort or a purchased pet does but it is free.
That's the problem, it doesn't say anything. It's whatever the GM thinks at the time. "It appears by magic" Is just as valid an interpretation of the rules as "You call it and if one is within a days walk it appears".Please tell me where it says that. I can't find it.But equally, the rules don't say "the ritual conjures X creature" or whatever.It appears by magic.
Exactly -- they're both valid interpretations. So I disagree when you say "The rule is quite clear: [..] Doesn't matter where you are, you can be on a 1/2 mile square island in the middle of the ocean and whistle up T-Rex."
Maybe it is ridiculous, but I could easily see a party with 2 druids, 2 rangers, plus 2-4 other party members.
Sure. But that's a 10-12 character party (with two characters of negligible importance), not a 6-8 character party.
Exactly -- they're both valid interpretations. So I disagree when you say "The rule is quite clear: [..] Doesn't matter where you are, you can be on a 1/2 mile square island in the middle of the ocean and whistle up T-Rex."
Well... the problem is that it is much more difficult to deal with players when the rules have 2 equally valid interpretations. In particular it's a royal PITA which the DM interprets the rules more harshly than the player. If there is some burden on the players then it should be spelled out explicitly.
Maybe it (an 8 druid party) is ridiculous, but I could easily see a party with 2 druids, 2 rangers, plus 2-4 other party members.Sure. But that's a 10-12 character party (with two characters of negligible importance), not a 6-8 character party.
Well no, I was referring to a 6-8 player party with 4 Animal Companions maybe I wasn't clear.
Well no, I was referring to a 6-8 player party with 4 Animal Companions maybe I wasn't clear.
You were perfectly clear, but the "C" in "NPC" stands for "Character".
So:
I'm thinking so. Sounds like this fixes most of the problems.
That's the problem, it doesn't say anything. It's whatever the GM thinks at the time. "It appears by magic" Is just as valid an interpretation of the rules as "You call it and if one is within a days walk it appears".Please tell me where it says that. I can't find it.But equally, the rules don't say "the ritual conjures X creature" or whatever.It appears by magic.
Actually, it isn't. The Animal Friendship spell from the 3.0 SRD sets a precedent that clearly indicates that the designers intended that you would have to be in an area where the animal can be found and befriended. You're just throwing out this precedent because it doesn't support your argument.
Are you going to be able to summon that Mega-Raptor in the Underdark? In the frozen tundra? While you're gallivanting around The Abyss? Most DMs would probably give you a negative on that one. But on the flip side, if you're willing to to go on a dangerous quest in the fetid jungles of the land beyond time to get that Mega-Raptor, I say more power to you.The problem with this limitation is that it is trivial for a druid of a level to get a dino pet.
Transport via plants there, summon, TvP back. 24 hours and two spells. Badoom, badabing.
You're assuming that the Druid will 1) be in an area where there are plants large enough to Pass Through (which the Underdark, Tundra, and deserted islands presented earlier in this thread would not, and you probably wouldn't be able to on The Abyss, but that depends on the nature of the particular layer that you are on) and 2) will be capable of surviving in that area once he/she arrives there. There's the very real possibility that the rest of the party will need to tag along to help you find your new Megaraptor Animal Companion if you try and obtain it as soon as you gain the Transport Via Plants spell - any DM worth their salt will almost certainly turn this expedition into an "adventuring opportunity".
I'm still not really why people believe that the Animal Companion needs to be nerfed or removed in the first place. They are nice to have, but contrary to what many people seem to think in this thread, they possess neither the intelligence, the gear, the raw damage output, or the kind of options that a PC or a Cohort have at their disposal. Many Druids choose to play without Animal Companions because they have a tendency to get pulped even at their current level of power. I still believe that Psychic_Robots' suggestion to tweak Animal Companions as opposed to eliminating them is the most prudent way to proceed in this matter.
The reason that casters are currently at the highest Tier in the game is not because of cohorts, but rather because of the amount of burst damage that they can inflict via Metamagic Feats and items. If you want to have a more balanced Druid, eliminating their Animal Companion is NOT the way to go about it - I believe that revising their high-damage spells and the Metamagic System is. This also applies to Wizards, Clerics, Sorcerers, and any other caster class that can deciminate a battlefield in short order thanks to Metamagic.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Actually, it isn't. The Animal Friendship spell from the 3.0 SRD sets a precedent that clearly indicates that the designers intended that you would have to be in an area where the animal can be found and befriended. You're just throwing out this precedent because it doesn't support your argument.That's the problem, it doesn't say anything. It's whatever the GM thinks at the time. "It appears by magic" Is just as valid an interpretation of the rules as "You call it and if one is within a days walk it appears".Please tell me where it says that. I can't find it.But equally, the rules don't say "the ritual conjures X creature" or whatever.It appears by magic.
3.0 does not equal 3.5
The rules changed in between. You're basing your argument on a spell that no longer exists. 3.0 haste doesn't exist any more either, so to argue design intent on 3.5 haste based on 3.0 haste is pointless, because in between editions they changed it. The design execution changed, so it is entirely reasonable to presume that the design intention changed.
The AC rules in 3.5 are different from the rules in 3.0. The design execution changed, so it is entirely reasonable to assume that the design intention changed as well.
The 3.0 animal friendship spell was inherently connected with the 3.0 animal companion rules. The 3.0 animal friendship spell is not inherently connected with the 3.5 animal companion rules.
Actually, it isn't. The Animal Friendship spell from the 3.0 SRD sets a precedent that clearly indicates that the designers intended that you would have to be in an area where the animal can be found and befriended. You're just throwing out this precedent because it doesn't support your argument.
No I'm throwing out your 'precedent' because there it applies to law and not to a games systems rules. I don't have the 3.0 rules to reference at my gaming table to make determinations about rules. Suggesting that rules interpretations requires obsolete, out of print books is ridiculous. How is a new DM to make any sort of logical ruling based on this? Umm... by making best use of the rule sitting right there in the PHB.
So, with the several things said, it does get difficult to know exactly what you're pulling for.I didn't realize this was a fan club, all along I've been thinking it's about trying to make this a better game.
Way to be a tw*t. Velderan's post was completely reasonable, and even though you took it out of context, it still remains reasonable.
Respond in an intelligent manner or stop posting. You're worthless if you're just going to keep spamming the same horsesh*t and then not backing it up.
I always thought druid companions should be able to help you escape from prison or carry a message, rather than tearing faces off.
That's a familiar.
3.0 does not equal 3.5
The rules changed in between. You're basing your argument on a spell that no longer exists. 3.0 haste doesn't exist any more either, so to argue design intent on 3.5 haste based on 3.0 haste is pointless, because in between editions they changed it.
The mechanics of Haste were changed, but the general idea behind the Haste spell was not. It may have changed between editions, but it was not wholly annihilated as a concept - it was mere mechanically refined.
The design execution changed, so it is entirely reasonable to presume that the design intention changed.
The AC rules in 3.5 are different from the rules in 3.0. The design execution changed, so it is entirely reasonable to assume that the design intention changed as well.
The 3.0 animal friendship spell was inherently connected with the 3.0 animal companion rules. The 3.0 animal friendship spell is not inherently connected with the 3.5 animal companion rules.
At what point is it reasonable to make any of these assumptions? If anything, the lack of language clarifying the mechanics behind summoning an Animal Companion indicates that the game designers probably assumed that players would use Nature's Bond within the pre-existing legal framework that they had already established with the Animal Friendship spell.
And let's be honest - the legal deviations between 3.0 and 3.5 are VERY minor. They do NOT constitute the construction of a new system, but the refinement of an existing one. D&D 4.0 - that is a completely different gaming system. I'd wager that 75% of the 3.0 rules remained identical in the transition from 3.0 to 3.5. What remains to be seen is how much material changes from 3.5 to Pathfinder, and if those changes remedy the problems of game balance at higher levels of play.
No I'm throwing out your 'precedent' because there it applies to law and not to a games systems rules. I don't have the 3.0 rules to reference at my gaming table to make determinations about rules. Suggesting that rules interpretations requires obsolete, out of print books is ridiculous. How is a new DM to make any sort of logical ruling based on this? Umm... by making best use of the rule sitting right there in the PHB.
What happened to your clarion call for legal proof that indicated that my interpretation of the overly vague Nature's Bond rules was supported by the original intentions of the game designers? Remember this?
Yes, according to the rules this is entirely possible. "Most DMs" would be wrong because the rules support exactly this. READ THE RULES. Don't tell me what 'a reasonable DM', or 'my DM', or 'You' would rule, read the actual rules and explain to me how this works, I'm just not seeing this.
You wanted a rule? I gave you a rule. Just because it's hard to find or isn't easily avaliable doesn't mean it's any less meaningful. Your claim that the description of Animal Friendship is "irrelevant" or "obsolete" is a false one, especially given the facts that:
1) 3.5 is simply a refinement of the original 3.0 rules as opposed to an entirely new game system.
2) WOTC intended for the 3.0 books to be at least somewhat backwards compatible with their revised 3.5 rulebooks (in much the same way that the 3.5 products will be backwards compatible with the Pathfinder RPG.
3) We're debating the intention and the spirit of the rules, as opposed to hard, crunchy math that has been since overturned by new and improved game mechanics.
4) Your argument that these precedents are useless because the books being cited is flawed because the 3.5 books themselves will very likely go out of print soon.
5) You can find all of this information online.
So we already read the rules for Animal Friendship. Let's take a look at another rule. What does Masters Of The Wild have to say about obtaining an Animal Companion?
Since having animal companions is a core ability of the Druid and the Ranger, the DM shouldn't make it particularly difficult or challenging to find one. The simplest option is to allow the character a couple of days between adventures to find the desired companion. As long as he or she searches in a terrain that is home to that species, it takes only a day or two to find an appropriate creature. (MOTW P.34)
Let's go for a Hat Trick, eh? Would you believe that even the 3.5 DMG has something to say about Animal Companions as well?
While the class descriptions in the Player's Handbook list the animals available as companions, those lists assume that the character spends most of her time in the animals' home territory and treats them well. If she spends most of her time at sea, in cities, or otherwise in places that the animal doesn't like, her animals are likely to desert. Remembers, these animals are loyal friends but not pets or servants. They won't remain loyal if being the character's friend becomes too onerous. (DMG 3.5 P.205)
I submit that based on the rules printed in these three official WOTC sources, it is a far more reasonable proposition to rule that a Druid or Ranger seeking an Animal Companion would have to seek out a habitat, terrain, or territory that their desired animal already lives in before performing the Animal Companion Ritual to obtain their desired pet.
I believe that simply accepting the poorly written Animal Companion rule as it stands violates the original intentions of the game designers and is a poor interpretation of a broad and overly vague rule.
I hope that the Pathfinder game designers provide language the clarifies the exact mechanics behind summoning an Animal Companion, but as it stands right now, these precedents force me to dismiss your literal interpretation of the Animal Summoning mechanics in the 3.5 Player's Handbook and the Pathfinder's Player's Guide.
3) We're debating the intention and the spirit of the rules, as opposed to hard, crunchy math that has been since overturned by new and improved game mechanics.
Umm we are? We are discussing the hard and crunchy rules that Paizo has printed in the Beta. Notice "Beta Playtest" at the top of the page? The Beta rules need to be complete in and of themselves. People should not have to refer to obsolete rules in Wizards of the Coasts books to try and figure them out.
If you want to talk about the basis for making some house rules and maybe which house rules are more valid than another then dig through the 3.0 rules. We've moved on to a new system here and it shouldn't leave silly little details out like this.
4) Your argument that these precedents are useless because the books being cited is flawed because the 3.5 books themselves will very likely go out of print soon.
Indeed... that's why we're discussing the Pathfinder Beta rules. I can get you a link where you can download them if you would like.
3) We're debating the intention and the spirit of the rules, as opposed to hard, crunchy math that has been since overturned by new and improved game mechanics.Umm we are? We are discussing the hard and crunchy rules that Paizo has printed in the Beta. Notice "Beta Playtest" at the top of the page? The Beta rules need to be complete in and of themselves. People should not have to refer to obsolete rules in Wizards of the Coasts books to try and figure them out.
The Pathfinder RPG rules are an extension of the original 3.0 and 3.5 rules sets. And the Nature's Bond ability is almost identical to the Animal Companion ability that was featured in the SRD. As it stands right now, the wording of this class ability is overly vague and we must look to precedent to guide our interpretation of the existing rules (such as they are) and to serve as the foundation of the new Animal Companion summoning rules.
I've already presented material from three official WOTC sources that clearly delineate how summoning Animal Companions is supposed to work. On the other hand, you have produced nothing to support your arguments, nor have you presented any suggestions to clarify these rules. You have failed your own rhetorical test, and I do not believe that further discourse with you on this matter will be constructive.
I guess you're right. How silly of me to suggest that the rulebooks be self contained.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
The mechanics of Haste were changed, but the general idea behind the Haste spell was not. It may have changed between editions, but it was not wholly annihilated as a concept - it was mere mechanically refined.3.0 does not equal 3.5
The rules changed in between. You're basing your argument on a spell that no longer exists. 3.0 haste doesn't exist any more either, so to argue design intent on 3.5 haste based on 3.0 haste is pointless, because in between editions they changed it.
I'd beg to differ. The 3.0 Haste spell was almost entirely a spellcasting enhancement that let you cast 2 spells per round. It let one creature get one extra partial action per round - could be a move, could be a single attack, but was radically most useful to cast one extra spell per round.
The 3.5 Haste spells has nothing to do with spellcasting, affects large numbers of creatures, grants extra attacks only when full attacking, and provides an array of smaller bonuses.
The two spells are similar only in name and the vaguest sense of the concept "lets the recipient(s in 3.5) do stuff faster."
The design execution changed, so it is entirely reasonable to presume that the design intention changed.
The AC rules in 3.5 are different from the rules in 3.0. The design execution changed, so it is entirely reasonable to assume that the design intention changed as well.
The 3.0 animal friendship spell was inherently connected with the 3.0 animal companion rules. The 3.0 animal friendship spell is not inherently connected with the 3.5 animal companion rules.
At what point is it reasonable to make any of these assumptions? If anything, the lack of language clarifying the mechanics behind summoning an Animal Companion indicates that the game designers probably assumed that players would use Nature's Bond within the pre-existing legal framework that they had already established with the Animal Friendship spell.
And let's be honest - the legal deviations between 3.0 and 3.5 are VERY minor. They do NOT constitute the construction of a new system, but the refinement of an existing one. D&D 4.0 - that is a completely different gaming system. I'd wager that 75% of the 3.0 rules remained identical in the transition from 3.0 to 3.5. What remains to be seen is how much material changes from 3.5 to Pathfinder, and if those changes remedy the problems of game balance at higher levels of play.
75% of the rules may well have remained identical from 3.0 to 3.5.
25% (to use your percentages) of the rules did not.
Animal companions for druids and rangers are an instance of rules that did not. There is no legal framework for animal friendship in 3.5, as they erased that spell and any attendant frameworks from the game in the revision, just as they did the concept of having a spell (Haste) that allowed you to double-cast other spells. That rule mechanic ceased to exist with the revision (with the regrettable exception of using the 9th-level shapechange spell to turn into a choker - sigh).
It's pretty clear that I'm not going to change either of your minds despite having ample legal evidence to support my position, so I'm going to conclude my efforts to discuss this issue with you any further.
Jason - if you're still reading this thread - I'd like to request that you take these existing precedents and codify them (or create rules very much like them) in the final release of the Pathfinder RPG.
Thank you.
