People are crying about animal companions in many threads now, so here's my solution:
Screw the current system. Drop it, burn it, throw it out back and let it rot. Instead, make it a generic creature. A druid would have an animal companion. It would have base stats, something like...
12 Strength
12 Constitution
12 Dexterity
2 Intelligence
10 Wisdom
6 Charisma
Then the player gets to customize the animal companion.
HD: 1d8.
Attacks: 1 bite or claw or horn or talon, 1d6 damage.
Speed: 30 feet.
Size:
Small: +4 Dexterity, reduced natural weapon damage size, -10 foot land speed, +10 foot swimming or flying speed (if it can fly or swim), +4 bonus on Fly checks.
Medium: Cannot take the flier template.
Large: +2 Strength, +2 Constitution, -4 Dexterity, increased natural weapon damage size, -10 foot swimming speed (if it can swim), cannot take the flier template.
Templates:
Aquatic: Gains the aquatic template. Choose another template to apply.
Bestial: +2 Strength, +2 Dexterity, -2 Constitution.
Burrower: +2 Strength, burrow speed equal to land speed.
Hearty: +4 Constitution, +2 natural armor.
Riding: +2 Strength, two hoof attacks (1d4 damage), quadrupedal.
Swift: +2 Dexterity, +10 foot bonus to all movement modes.
Flier: +2 Dexterity, fly speed equal to triple land speed.
As the character progresses, his pet gets bonuses to its ability scores, natural armor, and the like as per the current druid chart. It gains bonus HD equal to ½ the character’s level.
At sixth level, the animal companion gains a second natural attack (1d6 damage for a Medium companion), or it can use its beginning natural attack twice in a round at a -5 penalty.
At eighth level, it gains evasion.
At eleventh level, the animal companion gains a third natural attack, or it can use its beginning natural attack a second (or third) time in a round at a -5 penalty.
At third level and every three levels thereafter, the animal companion gains a special quality:
Constrict: 1d6 + Strength modifier points of damage on a successful grapple check. Damage improves by +1d6 for every six levels you have.
Ferocity: Can keep fighting even when disabled or dying without penalty.
Improved Grab: As the standard ability.
Powerful Charge: Additional damage equal to 1d6 + twice Strength modifier on a successful charge attack. Damage improves by +1d6 for every six levels you have.
Rage: Gains a +4 bonus to Strength and Constitution, -2 penalty to AC, on its turn after taking damage. [/b] Gains an extra natural attack automatically when grappling (1d4 for a medium creature). At tenth level, gains a second claw attack. Otherwise as the standard ability.
Scent: As the standard ability.
Venomous Strike: 1d4 Constitution damage initial/secondary. Save DC equals 10 + ½ HD + Constitution modifier.
(These are just SUGGESTIONS, not a complete list.)
And before anyone gets started in on me, let it be known that I hate to do this. I loathe the very concept. It makes me ill to the core of my being. However, this would ensure a balanced animal companion at the cost of variety.
Thoughts?
|
Hmmm, no replies.
The construct-a-companion approach has the same sort of appeal as the changes to polymorphs, in that it removes the unpredictability and lack of balance amongst the companions. Some standard templates could always be given, too (this is a dog at level 1, this is a duck-billed platypus at level 4, etc).
Again, I don't like this solution. I like players being able to choose individual companions based off of the specific animals' stats. However, this would clearly be the most balanced option.
Again, I don't like this solution. I like players being able to choose individual companions based off of the specific animals' stats. However, this would clearly be the most balanced option.
So it would basically be Animal Companion ala Astral Construct. It's certainly an option, to build a menu which has Trippers, Small Fliers and Mounts at Tier 1, Multiattackers and Large Predators at Tier 2, and Pouncing and Improved Grab at Tier 3.
It could work.
I'm not a fan. I'm more interested in flavor than balance. The AC rules don't have nearly the open-ended breakability of something like polymorph, so I think this is a much more drastic change, personally. (also, it's a little odd for backwards compatibility. Sure, the MM horse has THESE stats, but not my horse...it has these other stats....)
Director of Games
|
I have to admit, we considered a system that was very very similar to this, but since it allowed for the creation of unknowable flying, horned, rideable mammals... we went with a different (although somewhat similar) direction. I am hoping to share this idea with everyone soon. Stay tuned.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
And before anyone gets started in on me, let it be known that I hate to do this. I loathe the very concept. It makes me ill to the core of my being. However, this would ensure a balanced animal companion at the cost of variety.
I don't like it any more than I liked it as a Polymorph substitute: "I polymorph into someone who looks exactly like me, but who can fly and has better Str, Dex and Con scores and has skin as hard as iron."
|
|
I'm not a fan. I'm more interested in flavor than balance. The AC rules don't have nearly the open-ended breakability of something like polymorph, so I think this is a much more drastic change, personally. (also, it's a little odd for backwards compatibility. Sure, the MM horse has THESE stats, but not my horse...it has these other stats....)
Well, an AC already ends up different to a normal animal anyhow, as the Druid or Ranger progresses. However, I can see that there might have to be some template restrictions or something like that.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Again, I don't like this solution. I like players being able to choose individual companions based off of the specific animals' stats. However, this would clearly be the most balanced option.So it would basically be Animal Companion ala Astral Construct. It's certainly an option, to build a menu which has Trippers, Small Fliers and Mounts at Tier 1, Multiattackers and Large Predators at Tier 2, and Pouncing and Improved Grab at Tier 3.
It could work.
That's the comparable I was thinking of - astral construct.
Part of me likes the idea and part of me doesn't, which puts me in the same boat as pretty much everyone else, I think. :)
|
|
I have to admit, we considered a system that was very very similar to this, but since it allowed for the creation of unknowable flying, horned, rideable mammals... we went with a different (although somewhat similar) direction. I am hoping to share this idea with everyone soon. Stay tuned.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Crosses fingers for a formula to calculate the Companion value of any animal.
*sigh* A system like this would only work if it were significantly stronger. I'm sure that 11HD animal at level 20 is going to really rock if the 14 HD animals that currently exist can't stay alive. Not to mention, something like this is going to create real problems when a cat and a grizzly bear have similar stats. I don't see how underpowering the AC creates balance. it feels like fixing a problem with a problem. This general IDEA is pretty good, it would just have to be very different.
I would not be fond of an approach like this. It reminds me of LEGOS. I'm more in favor of a clear-cut list of animals as choices, and an expansion of more exotic animals at higher levels.
|
|
*sigh* A system like this would only work if it were significantly stronger. I'm sure that 11HD animal at level 20 is going to really rock if the 14 HD animals that currently exist can't stay alive. Not to mention, something like this is going to create real problems when a cat and a grizzly bear have similar stats. I don't see how underpowering the AC creates balance. it feels like fixing a problem with a problem. This general IDEA is pretty good, it would just have to be very different.
Well, the idea's the most important thing, right? The numbers can be fixed to whatever level we like...
Personally, I don't care if Druid loses AC altogether; my main interest in this is the Ranger (who needs a more powerful AC than currently, because the current Ranger AC is worthless).
It seems flavorless to me, are they even animals at that point?
One issue I see is the lack of consistency in the current system at individual tiers. Often creatures on the same tier with wildly different CRs.
Here are the CRs of the current first tier (in Parens):
badger (½), camel (1), dire rat (1/3), dog (1/3), riding dog (1), eagle (½), hawk (1/3), horse (1), owl (½), pony (¼), Small Viper (½), Medium viper (1), or wolf (1)
I can understand getting an eagle instead of a wolf but I don't know anyone who has taken the dog in preference to the riding dog or the hawk in preference to the eagle. People should be given relatively equal choices so they can choose a companion based on role playing.
Well, the idea's the most important thing, right? The numbers can be fixed to whatever level we like...
Except nobody can even agree whether a 2 HD creature like a wolf is mediocre at best or a munchkin's wet dream (for a level 1 character's animal companion).
:-)
Well, the idea's the most important thing, right? The numbers can be fixed to whatever level we like...Except nobody can even agree whether a 2 HD creature like a wolf is mediocre at best or a munchkin's wet dream (for a level 1 character's animal companion).
Just not worth talking about any more. Punt that decision to Jason, etc and move on.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I have to admit, we considered a system that was very very similar to this, but since it allowed for the creation of unknowable flying, horned, rideable mammals... we went with a different (although somewhat similar) direction. I am hoping to share this idea with everyone soon. Stay tuned.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
But what if we want to have a One-horned, One-eyed, Flying Purple People Eater as an animal companion?
But what if we want to have a One-horned, One-eyed, Flying Purple People Eater as an Aberation Companion?I have to admit, we considered a system that was very very similar to this, but since it allowed for the creation of unknowable flying, horned, rideable mammals... we went with a different (although somewhat similar) direction. I am hoping to share this idea with everyone soon. Stay tuned.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Fixed your post for you. What is the abberation equivalent to a druid?
Even though the first tier pets vary from CR 1/3 to CR 1 it's still less than 1 CR variation. All of the tiers have a 1 CR variation (except for the Elasmosaurus). Where they vary more is in HD but the CR system is supposed to take all parts of the creature into consideration.
Couldn't generic just mean a single starting list? What if a druid wants an ape as a companion. Or a paladin wants a hawk as a companion and not a mount? What if a wizard wants a horse as a familiar?
It's not where the companions start but how they advance. The druid and ranger companions advance to help with combat and scouting. The paladin mounts advanced to help with combat and movement. The wizard familiars advanced to help deliver spells and enable scrying. And their improvement mechanics reflect this. HD, Armor, STR, DEX, tricks, INT, special abilities. Some overlap, some don't.
So it seems that natural divine, martial divine, and arcane energies alter animals differently.
We don't need to assign animals to specific classes we just need a basic list to start with, some additional lists for higher level play and lastly a list for what you get when you spend a feat.
We don't want to limit we want to add options. That way the role players and the gamer theorists are both happy.
Cheers
Well, yeah, they're animals with different stats to the MM animals. But then, normal ACs soon have different stats to their MM counterparts, too.It seems flavorless to me, are they even animals at that point?
That's true, ultimately 'monsters' are all just stat blocks with names, a bit of flavor text, and a nice picture (if it's a Paizo book anyways ;)
Now that I think about it it wouldn't be bad to have a set of ACs that are built using a standardized method like this with an optional section where a player who wanted to build his companion. There should be some out-of-the-box options that comply with the rules though so players can play a druid without having to build their companion in addition to building their character.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I would not be fond of an approach like this. It reminds me of LEGOS. I'm more in favor of a clear-cut list of animals as choices, and an expansion of more exotic animals at higher levels.
Just as an anal-retentive correction... cuz you know everyone has a personal snit about SOMETHING.
There is no such thing as LEGOs.
LEGO is both a singular and a plural, like deer or moose, and is a name for a line of product. The individual pieces with which we are well familiar are LEGO blocks. LEGO is a conjoined neologism derived from the Danish "leg godt" or "play well."
To learn more about the history of LEGO, you can go here or to the much-maligned Wikipedia.
And yeah, I know it's been a slang word for so long that it pretty much IS a word now, but I'll take my pet peeve to my grave. You can have it when you can pry it from my cold dead fingers!!!
I'm also a little bit concerned with redundancy. We'll end up with two systems for making virtually everything in the game. And the variations between sizes and things needs to be higher. I mean, it'd need to be way more fleshed out. At this point, we've all said our opinions so much that I'm more curious to see what Jason's thinking than anything (and hoping that he seriously takes player concerns into account once it's presented).
So far I like Honourable Rogues idea. Why restrict specific animals to specific classes. To the list of animals, just add an extra field for Familiar bonus for Wizards and Sorcerers. This will allow more flavour in the game for all classes.
The starting animal I don't think is the problem here, it is more the advancement of the animal in all the classes that is the actual problem, causing them to become less natural. Arcane users makes sense to become more magical, but for Druid and Ranger it actually goes against the point that they stand for, protecting nature, by creating an non-natural creature from a natural animal.
|
|
Now that I think about it it wouldn't be bad to have a set of ACs that are built using a standardized method like this with an optional section where a player who wanted to build his companion. There should be some out-of-the-box options that comply with the rules though so players can play a druid without having to build their companion in addition to building their character.
Yeah, that could even be the default, with some standard progressions thrown in, and the rest up to DM approval, I guess. Although DM approval is, I suppose, implicit in AC stuff anyhow.