This is largely a re-post of something I posted over at the 'is the animal companion too powerful?' thread. Frankly, this is for people who want to come up with tweaks to fix what some players believe is broken, and not for people who want to remove or completely rehash the feature. Thus so far, the problem seems to exist that players are either A: Getting a beloved pet at low levels for it to become useless later on. Or B: constantly trading their pet out for the newest and best thing, eventually abusing the system to get something godawful broken.
Thus far, these are the changes no one seems to have really objected to:
-High Tier pets removed (the Trex, the Dire shark, etc).
-Low tier pets given a high-level boost(+3-4 HD instead of +2 for druid levels 15 and 18)
-Mid-tier pets moved to higher tiers
-No pet options larger than large size
-Limited and specific magical item slots for pets
-More severe penalties for switching pets (boy and his dog scenario)
-Slightly tighter/stricter rules on battlefield control
These all feel like moderate adjustments that could make players on both sides happy. What else should we add? What do you think is going too far?
I can agree on this suggestions. Also give us more tricks at lower levels. I would also remove Evasion and other non-druid class features from companions and give them some unique ability based on the class that uses them. Things like Pass without trace or Immunity to poisons, maybe even an ability to change appearance at higher levels (but not stats) come to mind.
Also for rangers companions, give it abilities from ranger class features, like bonus feats or such. Evasion is good for higher level ranger pets as is bonuses for stealth.
What do you mean when you say "battlefield control"?
What do you mean when you say "battlefield control"?
I think he means "how much you can control your pet in combat".
Yes, I'm saying maybe creating a bit sticter rules on controlling an AC in combat would help mitigate some of the problem (personally, I think 'attack' and 'don't attack' are a LOT less useful than say 'fighter, you should attack the mage'. Which make the AC's high ability scores not amount to that much).
Really, this is just a list of possibilities that no one on either side freaked out about.
Why not a simple solution?
Swap the rules for AC between the Ranger and Druid.
Give the druid the weaker one- since he really doesn't need it- and boost the ranger's- since melee classes suck anyway.
Simple solution without any "new rules" to deal with.
Thoughts?
-S
Why not a simple solution?
Swap the rules for AC between the Ranger and Druid.
Give the druid the weaker one- since he really doesn't need it- and boost the ranger's- since melee classes suck anyway.
Simple solution without any "new rules" to deal with.
Thoughts?
-S
I definitely see the rationale behind it, but I think it's a little bit drastic. The ranger progression is so weak it makes the pet really useless, so giving that to either class feels pointless. I'd like to see them both get full progression. The thing is, right now, a 'bear druid' who is all about buffing their grizzly is a possibility. If we did the switch, that's no longer a viable build, and I'm for giving more options, rather than taking them away.
|
-More severe penalties for switching pets (boy and his dog scenario)
That's one thing that surprised me about the Animal Companion class feature in 3.5. Nature-worshipping Druids and Rangers, who presumably love their furry little friends, can get them killed off and replace them in 24 hours with impunity. Fiend-blooded Sorcerers and evil Necromancers who are as likely to kill their annoying Raven Familiar as listen to it's annoying Int 6 prattle of inane questions, lose experience and then have to spend a *year* and 100 gp to replace it.
It might be interesting to have a 'Favored Companion' feature, that gives a Druid or Ranger full value for a specific companion type (Wolves and Dire Wolves, for instance), and any other companion taken will be at the next lower value (as if the character was two levels lower), until certain preset 'choice' levels (like 4th, 8th, etc) when the character can change his 'Favored Companion' (to 'great cats' for instance, allowing wolf-girl to trade up to a Lion at full value. If she trades up early, while still having 'wolves' as her Favored Companion type, her Lion will have it's abilities determined as if she was current Druid level -2).
The idea of swapping out Druid and Ranger Animal Companion progressions is interesting. It's probably the only way in Hades I'd ever play a Ranger. I wouldn't mind seeing the Ranger progression (whether it was for Rangers or Druids) changed to Ranger level -4, instead of half Ranger level. Half Ranger level for progression just makes the Animal Companion a speed bump, and rarely worth the book-keeping and time wasted to track and resolve it's actions.
Heck, I wouldn't mind seeing an Alternate Class feature for Rangers that swapped out spellcasting for a full-strength Animal Companion, if the Ranger wasn't already getting said Companion as part of a Ranger / Druid swaparoonie.
Dennis Da Ogre suggested on one of his threads that we created an 'improved companion' feat to gain access to some of the higher tiers (which of course, used to be the medium tiers, as things need to be spread out to be fair). How does that sound?
That's one thing that surprised me about the Animal Companion class feature in 3.5. Nature-worshipping Druids and Rangers, who presumably love their furry little friends, can get them killed off and replace them in 24 hours with impunity. Fiend-blooded Sorcerers and evil Necromancers who are as likely to kill their annoying Raven Familiar as listen to it's annoying Int 6 prattle of inane questions, lose experience and then have to spend a *year* and 100 gp to replace it.It might be interesting to have a 'Favored Companion' feature, that gives a Druid or Ranger full value for a specific companion type (Wolves and Dire Wolves, for instance), and any other companion taken will be at the next lower value (as if the character was two levels lower), until certain preset 'choice' levels (like 4th, 8th, etc) when the character can change his 'Favored Companion' (to 'great cats' for instance, allowing wolf-girl to trade up to a Lion at full value. If she trades up early, while still having 'wolves' as her Favored Companion type, her Lion will have it's abilities determined as if she was current Druid level -2).
That's kind of a cool idea. A little bit of a penalty for not keeping one's pet thematic is probably a good nerf.
I too am troubled by the concept of people constantly replacing their pets if they die. When I played a doggie druid, my DM had to rule that 'ressurect' affected us both, as I wouldn't go adventuring without her. Realisitically, if I have a beloved pet, and it dies, I want to bring it back, not replace it with 'a pet' or even 'a pet of the same type'. I think(and someone is going to smack me down with the Stormwind Fallacy for this) the difference between players who keep a beloved pet and the players who go "I can get a lion now? Go away, Mr. wolf who has been protecting me and been a beloved friend for these past months, you're less strong than what I can now get" shows a huge difference in people who play druids for RP and people who play them for OMGPOWERZ.
What do you mean when you say "battlefield control"?I think he means "how much you can control your pet in combat".
This came up in another thread.
RAW, your only 'control' over the AC is thru Handle Animal. RAW, there's nothing to suggest that the Player should RUN their AC, since it's just another NPC, albeit one they are adept at influencing. It's often a convenience for the DM to let the Player run the AC, but too often the specifics of Handle Animal communication are ignored, and it's treated as just another PC/ able to do EXACTLY what the Player wants. Except for higher Intelligence animals (Apes, for one), their number of "tricks" is VERY limited, and since it would be very frustrating if they DIDN'T have standard tricks like stay, go, attack, fetch, they effectively only have one "unique" action (at the lower tiers, at least).This is already in the RAW, though I've seen ignored so often, that mentioning it again/ in stronger words in the Druid/Ranger sections is certainly worthwhile.
What do you mean when you say "battlefield control"?I think he means "how much you can control your pet in combat".This came up in another thread.
RAW, your only 'control' over the AC is thru Handle Animal. RAW, there's nothing to suggest that the Player should RUN their AC, since it's just another NPC, albeit one they are adept at influencing. It's often a convenience for the DM to let the Player run the AC, but too often the specifics of Handle Animal communication are ignored, and it's treated as just another PC/ able to do EXACTLY what the Player wants. Except for higher Intelligence animals (Apes, for one), their number of "tricks" is VERY limited, and since it would be very frustrating if they DIDN'T have standard tricks like stay, go, attack, fetch, they effectively only have one "unique" action (at the lower tiers, at least).
This is already in the RAW, though I've seen ignored so often, that mentioning it again/ in stronger words in the Druid/Ranger sections is certainly worthwhile.
The problem with doing this through handle animals is not generally due to ignorance but more due to work load. It's one more task/ set of rolls which the DM has to deal with in an already busy scenario. There are also lots of judgment calls involved. Would the Animal Companion do that without being pushed? Which means the rules are applied inconsistently.
Myself, I just put a sanity check on the AC and ignore all the handle animal rolls the player should probably do. Mostly because the players handle animal skill is high enough he would make the rolls in any case.
Incidentally the phrase 'Battlefield Control' is a poor choice of words since it's commonly used to refer to tactics employed by spellcasters in combat.
Why not a simple solution?
Swap the rules for AC between the Ranger and Druid.
While elegant...
A ranger rolling around with a mega-raptor is only marginally less appealing to me than a druid with one. Get rid of some of the higher level options or at least make them expensive in terms of player resources.
Hrmm...what would you give instead of evasion? (I saw somebody suggesting on one of the threads it be replaced). As of now, it kinda keeps the pet alive due to crappy HP, but I suppose it wouldn't be strictly necessary, given the suckitude of evocation spells. What would be more thematic without breaking, overpowering, or underpowering the companion?
Hrmm...what would you give instead of evasion? (I saw somebody suggesting on one of the threads it be replaced). As of now, it kinda keeps the pet alive due to crappy HP, but I suppose it wouldn't be strictly necessary, given the suckitude of evocation spells. What would be more thematic without breaking, overpowering, or underpowering the companion?
More tricks? Evasion is not for animal companions, any class feature that is not a part of the class that has the companion is not logical for the companion to have. Neither Druid or his spells have anything to do with Evasion or Improved Evasion. I would still keep the Evasion for the Ranger's companion but also remove Improved version.
Maybe SR at higher levels would be more appropriate or some healing ability, or a way for the druid to channel spells through his companion.I feel the same for familiars and their abilities which are not from any of the class features or spells of the wizard and sorcerer.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Simple fix #1: Take the initial list of animal companions and split it. Then, kick all of the other companion types up one notch (3 levels, so one more stage of bonus HD/special abilities)
Tier 1: Badger, Bat, Cat, Dog, Hawk, Lizard, Monkey, Owl, Pony, Rat, Raven, Snake (small V)
Tier 2 (level -3): Baboon, Camel, Dog (riding), Eagle, Horse (light/med), Hyena, Octopus*, Porpoise*, Shark (medium)*, Snake (medium V), Squid*, Wolf
Tier 3 (level -6): Ape, black bear, bison, boar, cheetah, croc*, dire badger, dire bat, dire weasel, leopard, shark (L)*, snake (const), snake (large V), wolverine
Tier 4 (level -9): Brown bear, giant croc, etc.
Tier 5 (level -12): Polar bear, dire lion, etc.
Tier 6 (level -15): Dire bear, elephant, giant octo*
Tier 7 (level -18): T-rex, dire tiger, etc.
Simple fix #2: Keep the current spread of animal tiers (1 and 2 above), but space out the levels in such a way that a maxed-out 1st-level pet will have the same HD as a new monstrous pet at higher levels (which would mean capping animal comp HD at 15 (for a 3 HD horse/camel, +12 for 18th-20th level).
Instead of having the level drop be every 3 levels, you'd make it every 4.
The "Ape, black bear, bison, boar" tier is -4
The "brown ear, giant croc, deinonychus" tier is -8
The "polar bear, dire lion, megarap" tier is -12
The "dire bear, elephant" tier is -16
The "T-rex, dire shark/tiger" tier is -20, making it essentially an epic-level application of animal companion.
With this model, at 19th level you could still have your original riding dog at 14 HD or you could have a dire bear at 14 HD.
Simple fix #3: Each time your animal companion is killed (and not raised), you are treated as 3 levels lower than normal (minimum 1st level) if you use your "animal companion" class ability for one month.
Thoughts?
Simple fix #1: Take the initial list of animal companions and split it. Then, kick all of the other companion types up one notch (3 levels, so one more stage of bonus HD/special abilities)
Tier 1: Badger, Bat, Cat, Dog, Hawk, Lizard, Monkey, Owl, Pony, Rat, Raven, Snake (small V)
Tier 2 (level -3): Baboon, Camel, Dog (riding), Eagle, Horse (light/med), Hyena, Octopus*, Porpoise*, Shark (medium)*, Snake (medium V), Squid*, Wolf
[..]
Thoughts?
It's silly to restrict riding dogs and horses to level 2 druids when any level 1 character with a couple hundred gp can afford one.
"Ha ha! I have a ho-orse, and yo-ou do-on't have one!"
|
|
I kind of like the idea of keeping the insane options, but only at ridiculous levels. When the Wizard can cast Wish and the Cleric can cast Miracle, I don't mind so much if the Druid has a T-Rex.
Options;
1) Do nothing.
2) Buff the Rangers Companion to be level -4 and not level /2.
3) Swap the Ranger and Druid Animal Companions (perhaps along with 2).
4) Nothing larger than Large?
5) Favored Companion?
6) Increase the time to swap out or replace a Companion or put some 'cost' on it (must go find the critter, etc.).
Of all of these options, number three and number two combined seem to be the quickest and easiest to implement, and I'm kinda partial to changes that don't require a lot of text to explain.
Whether or not dinosaurs are available should also be setting-specific, and perhaps some sort of feat or Regional Trait might be required to use dinosaurs or vermin (both of which are pretty much just 'animals', regardless of type).
Simple fix #1: Take the initial list of animal companions and split it. Then, kick all of the other companion types up one notch (3 levels, so one more stage of bonus HD/special abilities)
ERmm...way too much. The first two tiers are fine,. Seriously, so the riding dog or horse is really good for level one, is that THAT important? Also, you need to think about the implications of something like this over the course of the game. You're talking about making already-underpowered choices weaker. A 12 HD dog at level 20? COME ON, 14 is already too weak (it needs to be more like 18, which wouldn't give a significant power boost, but WOULD give a significant survival boost).
I kind of like the idea of keeping the insane options, but only at ridiculous levels. When the Wizard can cast Wish and the Cleric can cast Miracle, I don't mind so much if the Druid has a T-Rex.
Options;
1) Do nothing.
2) Buff the Rangers Companion to be level -4 and not level /2.
3) Swap the Ranger and Druid Animal Companions (perhaps along with 2).
4) Nothing larger than Large?
5) Favored Companion?
6) Increase the time to swap out or replace a Companion or put some 'cost' on it (must go find the critter, etc.).Of all of these options, number three and number two combined seem to be the quickest and easiest to implement, and I'm kinda partial to changes that don't require a lot of text to explain.
Whether or not dinosaurs are available should also be setting-specific, and perhaps some sort of feat or Regional Trait might be required to use dinosaurs or vermin (both of which are pretty much just 'animals', regardless of type).
I think druid and ranger need full progression. If the feature were fixed, and said classes didn't take ridiculous options, that's the only way I can see to do it fairly. Besides that, I hate "feature of X class -3 or 4" because it creates an annoying rules hassle over a tiny bit of power.
The thing with the insane options is, at about 12+ they start to outdo the fighter, so I can see where they draw so much venom.
It's silly to restrict riding dogs and horses to level 2 druids when any level 1 character with a couple hundred gp can afford one.
"Ha ha! I have a ho-orse, and yo-ou do-on't have one!"
They can not afford one when the game starts unless the make some serious equipment sacrifices or unless the DM ignores starting gold guidelines. Druid could buy a riding dog just as easily as anyone else. As it is now the druid is the one chanting "Ha ha! I have a ho-orse, and yo-ou do-on't have one!" when the game starts.
Simple fix #1: Take the initial list of animal companions and split it. Then, kick all of the other companion types up one notch (3 levels, so one more stage of bonus HD/special abilities)
This seems pretty reasonable. Some of the animals you moved up fall sort of between the two levels though.
Simple fix #2: Keep the current spread of animal tiers (1 and 2 above), but space out the levels in such a way that a maxed-out 1st-level pet will have the same HD as a new monstrous pet at higher levels (which would mean capping animal comp HD at 15 (for a 3 HD horse/camel, +12 for 18th-20th level).
With this model, at 19th level you could still have your original riding dog at 14 HD or you could have a dire bear at 14 HD.
I like this one better but I also think there are still a few animals that fall between the cracks. Maybe nuke the really weak AC options completely and move the AC class feature so it starts at 2nd level so you don't have the druid + riding dog (fighter replacement) at 1st level.
Simple fix #3: Each time your animal companion is killed (and not raised), you are treated as 3 levels lower than normal (minimum 1st level) if you use your "animal companion" class ability for one month.
The problem with this is that you have an inconsistent power level in the class. Some druids with full AC and some with partial.
They can not afford one when the game starts unless the make some serious equipment sacrifices or unless the DM ignores starting gold guidelines. Druid could buy a riding dog just as easily as anyone else. As it is now the druid is the one chanting "Ha ha! I have a ho-orse, and yo-ou do-on't have one!" when the game starts.It's silly to restrict riding dogs and horses to level 2 druids when any level 1 character with a couple hundred gp can afford one.
"Ha ha! I have a ho-orse, and yo-ou do-on't have one!"
I didn't say at the beginning of the game, but let's say 25% of the way into level 1 you should easily be able to afford a riding dog and/or a light warhorse.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I didn't say at the beginning of the game, but let's say 25% of the way into level 1 you should easily be able to afford a riding dog and/or a light warhorse.They can not afford one when the game starts unless the make some serious equipment sacrifices or unless the DM ignores starting gold guidelines. Druid could buy a riding dog just as easily as anyone else. As it is now the druid is the one chanting "Ha ha! I have a ho-orse, and yo-ou do-on't have one!" when the game starts.It's silly to restrict riding dogs and horses to level 2 druids when any level 1 character with a couple hundred gp can afford one.
"Ha ha! I have a ho-orse, and yo-ou do-on't have one!"
1. By the time you finish your first adventure, to the point where each character has a few hundred gold, you are almost certainly second level.
2. There is nothing preventing a druid or ranger from buying a pet animal. Given their likely higher Handle Animal skill, they will likely be much better at using an ordinary animal for their purposes than anyone else, especially for a druid who can, if he wishes, speak with animals with a pet.
3. Other characters' pets still do not get to share spells, have an empathic link, learn free bonus tricks, have their stats and special abilities and hit dice (and thereby skills and feats) increase with level, or get to be pushed as a move and handled as a free action.
|
Instead of tying AC tiers only to class level, ACs could have level and Handle Animal ranks requirements. The death of an AC could incur a permanent loss of 5 Handle Animal ranks for the Ranger/Druid. These can only be made up on levelling, spending the new level's skill points.
For HA checks, the R/D should spend 15 minutes grooming/tussling/etc his AC each morning, ending with a HA roll that applies to all checks that day. Skip that ritual bonding, and the R/D has to "take 0" on any Push needed that day.
I didn't say at the beginning of the game, but let's say 25% of the way into level 1 you should easily be able to afford a riding dog and/or a light warhorse.They can not afford one when the game starts unless the make some serious equipment sacrifices or unless the DM ignores starting gold guidelines. Druid could buy a riding dog just as easily as anyone else. As it is now the druid is the one chanting "Ha ha! I have a ho-orse, and yo-ou do-on't have one!" when the game starts.It's silly to restrict riding dogs and horses to level 2 druids when any level 1 character with a couple hundred gp can afford one.
"Ha ha! I have a ho-orse, and yo-ou do-on't have one!"
I suppose... assuming the fighter is willing to drop their initial treasure on a mount instead of armor or a better weapon which is what most martial characters do as early as possible. So the druid has a mount, the fighter has a mount... the druid buys barding for his riding dog and you still don't have any parity. Unless you give more money to the fighters to gear up at low levels.
Ok, this is a thread about how to tweak the existing AC w/o a major redesign or loss. I'd appreciate it if it didn't degenerate into the kind of ridiculous arguments about nothing the other AC threads have degenerated into. If you're not going to post about possible revisions, and you aren't comment on possible revisions (positively or negatively) please post elsewhere.
The fact that the minor cost of a riding dog is being presented as evidence of the alleged brokeness of the riding dog AC (which is severely underpowered anyway)is ridiculous. I don't know if you're arguing for the sake of argument because you're ground with the other posters, or if this is more 'axe to grind with druid players' nonsense, but it's not contributing to the discussion whatsoever.
If you're not going to post about possible revisions, and you aren't comment on possible revisions (positively or negatively) please post elsewhere.
To be specific, I am negatively commenting on the suggested revision that says that a horse and/or riding dog needs to be moved to level 2. I think those two are just fine for a level 1 party.
I'm not a big fan of the idea of enforcing balance by forcing a PC to twiddle his thumbs before he gets to do something cool (e.g. making a druid wait until level 2 before having an interesting animal companion, making a rogue wait until level 2 or 3 before being able to take Weapon Finesse, making a bard wait until level 2 before being able to cast level 1 spells, etc. -- note that the last two have been fixed in Pathfinder Beta).
If you're not going to post about possible revisions, and you aren't comment on possible revisions (positively or negatively) please post elsewhere.To be specific, I am negatively commenting on the suggested revision that says that a horse and/or riding dog needs to be moved to level 2. I think those two are just fine for a level 1 party.
Sorry, I left that too open-ended. I wasn't really referring to you.
I'm not a big fan of the idea of enforcing balance by forcing a PC to twiddle his thumbs before he gets to do something cool (e.g. making a druid wait until level 2 before having an interesting animal companion, making a rogue wait until level 2 or 3 before being able to take Weapon Finesse, making a bard wait until level 2 before being able to cast level 1 spells, etc. -- note that the last two have been fixed in Pathfinder Beta).
Umm... twiddle his thumbs? The druid is apparently not capable of wielding the scimitar or casting spells during this time? The druid would also have access to other AC options until that time.
The fact that the minor cost of a riding dog is being presented as evidence of the alleged brokeness of the riding dog AC (which is severely underpowered anyway)is ridiculous. I don't know if you're arguing for the sake of argument because you're ground with the other posters, or if this is more 'axe to grind with druid players' nonsense, but it's not contributing to the discussion whatsoever.
The problem with your idea of discussing 'fixes' is that you cannot agree to a fix unless you agree that something is broken. As an example,
The riding dog is too powerful to be a single class feature of a 1st level character.
You don't agree to that statement so you don't believe it needs to be fixed. You cannot separate the fix from the definition of the problem.
Umm... twiddle his thumbs? The druid is apparently not capable of wielding the scimitar or casting spells during this time? The druid would also have access to other AC options until that time.
The same argument applies to the "no weapon finesse rogue" (Just use a bow for one level!).
I can only speak from my personal experience, but most druids I've seen pick a wolf (#1 in popularity IMO), riding dog, or horse at level 1. Maybe once I've seen an eagle; I'm not sure. But I've never seen anyone take a bat or a rat or a cat. So basically the proposed change would be saying: "Be patient, and we'll let you pick something bad-ass like a wolf real soon now."
The same argument applies to the "no weapon finesse rogue" (Just use a bow for one level!).
I can only speak from my personal experience, but most druids I've seen pick a wolf (#1 in popularity IMO), riding dog, or horse at level 1. Maybe once I've seen an eagle; I'm not sure. But I've never seen anyone take a bat or a rat or a cat. So basically the proposed change would be saying: "Be patient, and we'll let you pick something bad-ass like a wolf real soon now."
Options that are all severaly underpowered by tenth level, BTW. Let alone once you've screwed them further with a level penalty. having to take a rat familiar while you wait for something as weak as a dog or horse is an insulting punishment to druids for 3.5, and makes the 'upgrading, upgrading, upgrading' problem even worse. Not to mention, it's clearly a roundabout way of making the pets nomcombatants for the first 3 levels (and monster food after that), which is something that's already been dismissed in previous discussions.
I can only speak from my personal experience, but most druids I've seen pick a wolf (#1 in popularity IMO), riding dog, or horse at level 1. Maybe once I've seen an eagle; I'm not sure. But I've never seen anyone take a bat or a rat or a cat. So basically the proposed change would be saying: "Be patient, and we'll let you pick something bad-ass like a wolf real soon now."
And the reason why these are the choice at 1st level is because they are a huge improvement over the alternatives. The other options are not even in the same class.
Frankly I'm just going to leave it at that. Look at the math, out the gate, 1st level druid + riding dog is a world more effective than any other 1st level class. If we're can't agree on that then I don't see how there can be any 'consensus' on this issue at all.
People are actually saying that the riding dog is overpowered because level one characters can't initially afford it?
Color me filled with despair at the plummeting chances of humanity's survival.
People are actually saying that the riding dog is overpowered because level one characters can't initially afford it?
Color me filled with despair at the plummeting chances of humanity's survival.
"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." -- Psychic_Robot
I think druid and ranger need full progression. If the feature were fixed, and said classes didn't take ridiculous options, that's the only way I can see to do it fairly. Besides that, I hate "feature of X class -3 or 4" because it creates an annoying rules hassle over a tiny bit of power.
The thing with the insane options is, at about 12+ they start to outdo the fighter, so I can see where they draw so much venom.
I agree that druid and ranger should get full progression of their animal companions or at least go back to the -4 for rangers.
I think we need to change the special column on the Animal Companion Advancement
My suggestions are…
Remove share spells off the special list and make it a druid ability that they get around level 5.
Remove Evasion and Improved evasion off the special list. Make an AC Evasion ability to allow Ranger to teach their AC Evasion as one of the AC tricks. Ranger would get this ability around 11th and same with Improved evasion around level 18.
It really does not make that a druid and a ranger can Woodland stride but their AC cannot do it. I would put Woodland Stride as a special in place where Evasion is now.
Now that I have removed the Evasion and Improved evasion from animal companions, I am concern about them surviving vs. reflex save. So maybe give them Lightning Reflexes at the level they currently get Improved evasion.
There is no fix for Druid ACs which involves the Druid keeping the AC and the AC being at all relevant to anything. The Druid is a tier 1 class *without* the AC. Adding power on top of that is stupid.
Give the ranger the druid's AC buffing spells. That way the 'person who plays a buffed pet' can exist without overpowering virtually everyone.
A: you're wrong
B: given the title, you probably shouldn't post here
Druid is pretty good without AC, It's not exactly awe-inspiring now that wild shape has been nerfed. And AC, if used properly (as per the fixes suggested) doesn't really overly tip the scales much.
I don't even want to discuss getting rid of it; other threads have been made to do so. The fact is that three of you are spamming the same crap over and over again, and then nitpicking like hell with anyone who dares disagree with you and derailing every thread you're posting on away from making any actual progress towards coming up with compromises. I've heard you push this druid-ranger switch thing at least three times now.
People from Paizo have all but outright stated that you will not get what you want. You may as well shut up, because, at this point, you're basically just trolling this thread.
If I may suggest, if people's base assumptions are not compatable, than working on solutions from your own assumptions in separate threads would probably be most productive for all involved... /shrug
What's interesting is, aside from you stretching what I said out of context at the end, little to none of what you said had anything to do with this thread. You, my good sir, are trolling. This thread isn't a question of whether the Druid should or should not have the pet, and I'm not interested in what you have to spam on the matter. If you have something constructive to post that fits the actual intent, please go ahead and do so. Otherwise, there are threads for you, and I won't be arguing your 'points' here, as they're an annoying attempt to derail.
I agree that druid and ranger should get full progression of their animal companions or at least go back to the -4 for rangers.I think we need to change the special column on the Animal Companion Advancement
My suggestions are…
Remove share spells off the special list and make it a druid ability that they get around level 5.
Remove Evasion and Improved evasion off the special list. Make an AC Evasion ability to allow Ranger to teach their AC Evasion as one of the AC tricks. Ranger would get this ability around 11th and same with Improved evasion around level 18.
It really does not make that a druid and a ranger can Woodland stride but their AC cannot do it. I would put Woodland Stride as a special in place where Evasion is now.
Now that I have removed the Evasion and Improved evasion from animal companions, I am concern about them surviving vs. reflex save. So maybe give them Lightning Reflexes at the level they currently get Improved evasion.
I agree, I'm not sure getting evasion right away is important or necessary. I also think things like woodland stride need to apply to the pet as well. Otherwise, you can't always take it with you.
Instead of tying AC tiers only to class level, ACs could have level and Handle Animal ranks requirements. The death of an AC could incur a permanent loss of 5 Handle Animal ranks for the Ranger/Druid. These can only be made up on levelling, spending the new level's skill points.
For HA checks, the R/D should spend 15 minutes grooming/tussling/etc his AC each morning, ending with a HA roll that applies to all checks that day. Skip that ritual bonding, and the R/D has to "take 0" on any Push needed that day.
Maybe you should be required to have handle animal ranks equal to at least the animal's HD
That actually sounds good, and forces Druid's to commit resources (Skill Ranks, which are scarce for Druids) if they want to get the most out of the AC. Although if that were to be implemented, I would want to see some more "Epic" usages of Handle Animal, so that maxing it out would have actual purpose/effect besides enabling larger HD AC's...
I just suggested that because it seems the same people are simply arguing over the same points and not progressing, and this same debate is ongoing in OTHER threads. The OP has stated he would prefer that those who dispute his assumptions take their debate to other threads. I don't think people's threads need to be hijacked, when they specifically don't appreciate it. /shrug