Title kind of sums it up. If we are going to have pets in the game can we please just roll all of the pets into one simple ruleset? Currently we have:
Druids - Animal Companions
Rangers - Half Animal Companions
Paladins - Special Mounts
Clerics - Animal Domain long term summons
The druid and cleric abilities are roughly at parity so just roll them into one ability. The ranger and paladin abilities are just second rate compared to the cleric/ ranger power, considering the ranger and paladin are not as powerful as the casting classes there is no reason not to bring them up to snuff.
The paladin's 'mount' could be taken care by either limiting the list to mount appropriate creatures or by giving a list of different 'tiers' of creatures which would allow class appropriate things such as gryphon's.
Fewer rules to learn, less stuff to fix, relevant class abilities for all classes. It also makes for consistent rules across classes... for example currently the paladin gets punished pretty severely for losing a mount while the cleric just summons something new an hour later.
This also would mean that animal companion/ mount levels would stack you could also create a simple set of feats to augment animal companions in a uniform way.
|
Tried responding to your previous topic about the Paladin mount for like 20 minutes, and now it's gone. Grr.
Anywho, I like the idea that a Summoned Celestial or Fiendish critter is more the stuff of the Upper or Lower planes given an animal-like form, and that there aren't actually 'celestial badgers' running around all over the Seven Heavens or whatever.
Under this paradigm, and using the Paladin's horse-summoning ability, it would make sense to me if the Paladin could just flat out summon a celestial warhorse with HD appropriate to his Paladin level (it's not like an 18 HD warhorse is going to do anything unbalancing in combat, with it's uber 1d6+8 damage or whatever), so that the warhorse will not be an obvious point of weakness (being like 4 HD, no matter how might level it's rider), and the warhorse, being a celestial entity, can no more be 'killed' than a celestial badger. Tomorrow, I summon another celestial badger, or warhorse, and it might remember me from yesterday, or not, whatever. It's less a horse, and more unformed essence of goodness, distilled from the upper planes and formed into a steed to bear the champions of right around the material plane.
However many times the mount could be summoned in a given day, the mount would reappear with full hit points, restored and revitalized by it's return to the upper planes, it's fleshly wounds dispersed along with it's fleshly body, which has since been replaced (much as it would if the creature were an astral projection, and not a true body).
This would indeed make the Paladin's Mount work under different rules than the Ranger and Druids Animal Companions, which goes counter to the spirit of your request, but does address the pesky side-issue of Paladin's having to spend a month to replace their incredibly weak steed, while a Druid can spend a day replacing a much more useful animal that might not exist anywhere within two continents of their current adventuring locale.
But I feel it would better represent the spirit of how the Paladins mount should work. It's a boon from his celestial masters, and the sacrifice of it's material shell is no more dangerous or lasting to it than it would be for any other outsider visiting from the upper planes.
I do understand that there is a vocal opposition to the 'poke-mount' concept, but this is one case where the mount being sent to the Paladin's call from his heavenly benefactors both works thematically, and is more 'useful' mechanically, than the Paladin being forced to seek out and train a never-ending series of warhorses that get killed off willy-nilly. Having the celestial warhorse manifest in another form, such as a celestial griffon, would require a higher-level Paladin, and a feat, and have a level-adjustment type scale such as that of a higher-level Druid animal companion choice.
As for the Druid / Ranger thing, I'm kinda partial to having the Ranger and Druid use the Druid progression at -X levels (with X being 3 or 4). The Druid's Companion can benefit from some pretty cool spells, such as Animal Growth, to help compensate for it being a few HD behind the curve and the Ranger, while perhaps in need of a little help, shouldn't get this help in the form of a pet, IMO, so much as a look at his personal abilities. Both should probably require a little bit more work to replace a Companion, as they *aren't* calling them from other planes, but from the natural world, and Dinosaurs (and Vermin) should require some sort of Feat, since I don't think that *any* Ranger or Druid should be able to whistle up an Allosaur.
I agree. I have been working on something in my head for a couple of days. I will try and type it up and post it tonight.
Tried responding to your previous topic about the Paladin mount for like 20 minutes, and now it's gone. Grr.
I sympathize. I had similar issues just posting and wound up posting a dupe so maybe when I deleted the dupe I flushed your reply. If so my apologies.
This would indeed make the Paladin's Mount work under different rules than the Ranger and Druids Animal Companions, which goes counter to the spirit of your request, but does address the pesky side-issue of Paladin's having to spend a month to replace their incredibly weak steed, while a Druid can spend a day replacing a much more useful animal that might not exist anywhere within two continents of their current adventuring locale.
My only problem with this is it means yet more rules and stuff DMs or players need to learn and deal with and more stuff to break or be abused by players.
You say a celestial charger that appears from heaven makes sense for the paladin conceptually but for me it makes more sense that the paladin should have a real flesh and bones mount because being a mounted warrior is part of the essence of being a paladin. I don't see either choice as right or wrong, just different world views.
What if both the paladin and the druid summoned their 'pet' on a daily or x/ day basis? I'm not so interested in the mechanism as much as simplifying things.
What if both the paladin and the druid summoned their 'pet' on a daily or x/ day basis? I'm not so interested in the mechanism as much as simplifying things.
I get what you're saying, but wouldn't that "summoning" of the pet qualify as some particular aspect of non-terrestrial powers? *considers* Granted, you would do pretty much the same thing as Summon Nature's Ally, though.. *nods thoughtfully* Y'know.. that's not half bad. I'll buy the "Manifested aspect of Nature" idea..
*chews lip* Or.. for an alternate twist, have the druid choose an animal aspect, similar to a wizard and their familiar, with that animal conveying a stat/skill/feat(?) bonus to the druid that can choose to "manifest" that animal aspect as the chosen animal, x times per day? Count them as losing the "aspect bonus" when the animal is manifested, with penalties if it is "forcibly dispelled" (i.e. killed)?
Heck, you could have that "aspect" enhance the properties of the Druid's Wild Shape, provided it hasn't been manifested (and the Druid changes into the animal of that aspect).
I do like the paladin's "spillover" of power onto his mount, though.. Can't offer any ideas on that.
What if both the paladin and the druid summoned their 'pet' on a daily or x/ day basis? I'm not so interested in the mechanism as much as simplifying things.I get what you're saying, but wouldn't that "summoning" of the pet qualify as some particular aspect of non-terrestrial powers? *considers* Granted, you would do pretty much the same thing as Summon Nature's Ally, though.. *nods thoughtfully* Y'know.. that's not half bad. I'll buy the "Manifested aspect of Nature" idea..
Again, I'm not really in love with any idea I just think it would be nice if they were all the same.
*chews lip* Or.. for an alternate twist, have the druid choose an animal aspect, similar to a wizard and their familiar, with that animal conveying a stat/skill/feat(?) bonus to the druid that can choose to "manifest" that animal aspect as the chosen animal, x times per day? Count them as losing the "aspect bonus" when the animal is manifested, with penalties if it is "forcibly dispelled" (i.e. killed)?
I think the existing share spells, link, etc abilities are fine and should be extended to the paladin (and cleric if they are to get a pet with the animal domain).
Unity is the direction I am currently heading. These divergent rules sets need to be brought into line. More to come on this soon.
YEAH!
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Sounds like a good idea to me also. However, I don't think I'd say that the druid AC should be the same as the Cleric animal domain one in power level, since the druid gets either the AC or the animal domain, which includes other spells and powers bundled into it, so I think that the animal domain critter should be less powerful overall. Does this mean more along the lines of caster level -3 instead of full level? Maybe, I haven't thought about it too much, but I don't think they should have the same power.
Hopefully this will bring all aspects into some sort of line.
- Companion advancement
- Feats to improve them
- Penalties for loss
There should still be variation in what the companions do for each class since existing companions function as combatant, enhancer, and/or scout to varying degrees.
I too am looking forward to seeing what Jason comes up with.
Cheers
Joel:
I agree with you, however as it's written right now the Cleric's domain power is essentially a new long term "Pet" Feature and should be treated as such. Hopefully it will get significantly altered so it no longer competes directly with the pets.
As for level -3 or whatever, we've pounded heads about what the appropriate level of power is for the AC for some time and there is no consensus. Jason knows it's an issue to many of us and that's the most important thing. This is a fairly high level issue so I'm curious to see what he brews up.
Rogue:
Hopefully this will bring all aspects into some sort of line.
- Companion advancement
- Feats to improve them
- Penalties for loss
There should still be variation in what the companions do for each class since existing companions function as combatant, enhancer, and/or scout to varying degrees.
I agree, I just feel it would be easy enough to provide one table with footnotes showing which classes can take which companions. Different classes could have different tiers. For example rangers and paladins would be great with a gryphon but druids not so much...
It would be cool to see feats (or traits) like:
"Halflings are treated as one level higher if they choose a riding dog as their animal companion or special mount"
Come to think of it, does this mean there will be a unified set of bonded object rules for the Paladin's sword and the Wizard's item? Well as unified as they can be considering they require different bonuses to help each class.
Cheers
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Anothing thing I'd like to see with the unified pet rules is making the improvements spread out over more levels. Currently you go up 3 or 4 levels, and your pet gets 2HD, +2 to this, +1 to that, etc. I'd rather see more levels that improve your pet and have the improvements be slower, so that every level your pet gets a) 1 HD, b) +1 natural armor, c) +1 bonus trick, d) a special ability, e) some combination of these, etc.
Title kind of sums it up. If we are going to have pets in the game can we please just roll all of the pets into one simple ruleset? Currently we have:
Druids - Animal Companions
Rangers - Half Animal Companions
Paladins - Special Mounts
Clerics - Animal Domain long term summons
You missed...
-undead (animated or rebuke/controlled)-golems
-simulacrums
-homunculi
-planar allies
and maybe some others like trained animals. Do those count as "pets"? If not, why not?
You missed...
-undead (animated or rebuke/controlled)
-golems
-simulacrums
-homunculi
-planar allies
and maybe some others like trained animals. Do those count as "pets"? If not, why not?
Because the ones you list are simply monsters under the control of a player. The 'pet classes' are codified into class features and advance as part of the player character.
I would suggest familiars be put in it also but they aren't really in the class of combat-ready critters.
I would suggest familiars be put in it also but they aren't really in the class of combat-ready critters.
Yeah, I'd like to see familiars more of a special case for bonded objects than animal companions.
It does look like there's a general consensus that (level - 3) is better than (level / 2) for keeping abilities relevant.
I think the idea of breaking the progression down into finer chunks makes sense, and if there's a unified pet progression that should free up the room to allow it.
|
|
You missed...
-undead (animated or rebuke/controlled)
-golems
-simulacrums
-homunculi
-planar allies
and maybe some others like trained animals. Do those count as "pets"? If not, why not?Because the ones you list are simply monsters under the control of a player. The 'pet classes' are codified into class features and advance as part of the player character.
I would suggest familiars be put in it also but they aren't really in the class of combat-ready critters.
Yeah, this particular simplification thing does seem to be more centered around 'class feature critters' and not just stuff you can summon (or attract as a cohort) or whatever.
There's a certain irony to the idea of simplifying these class features, while expanding the role of Domains and Specialty Schools from previously 'one-size-fits-all' solutions into far more complex critters. :)
I'd like to see a Build your Own Animal Companion section with the unification of Pets. Nothing sucks more then Cookie Cutter Character Templates. If it gets it's own section, we also might see appropriate feats make the feat list.
Well the way I see it there would be one list with all the potential companions ranked by tier with something to tag each one for which class could pick it up.
Tier 1 (Level -0)
Dog - Druid, Rangers
Pony - Paladin, Ranger
Skunk - Druid, Ranger
Badger - Gnomes, Druids, Rangers
Tier 2 (Level -2)
Riding Dog - Ranger, Paladin
Pikachu - Druid
Wolf - Druid, Ranger
Viper, Medium - Druid
Tier XXX (Level -XXX)
Gryphon - Ranger, Paladin
War Unicorn - Paladin
Otyugh - Rogue
Oelephant - Paladin, Ranger
Tarrasque - Paladin
Well that's how I see it anyhow. Maybe a little less vodka...
I'd like to see a Build your Own Animal Companion section with the unification of Pets. Nothing sucks more then Cookie Cutter Character Templates. If it gets it's own section, we also might see appropriate feats make the feat list.
Well it's gonna be limited to the existing pet classes. I'm hoping the cleric quasi pet goes the way of Securitized home loans ought to.
|
|
I'd like to see a Build your Own Animal Companion section with the unification of Pets. Nothing sucks more then Cookie Cutter Character Templates. If it gets it's own section, we also might see appropriate feats make the feat list.Well the way I see it there would be one list with all the potential companions ranked by tier with something to tag each one for which class could pick it up.
Tier 1 (Level -0)
Dog - Druid, Rangers
Pony - Paladin, Ranger
Skunk - Druid, Ranger
Badger - Gnomes, Druids, RangersTier 2 (Level -2)
Riding Dog - Ranger, Paladin
Pikachu - Druid
Wolf - Druid, Ranger
Viper, Medium - DruidTier XXX (Level -XXX)
Gryphon - Ranger, Paladin
War Unicorn - Paladin
Otyugh - Rogue
Oelephant - Paladin, Ranger
Tarrasque - PaladinWell that's how I see it anyhow. Maybe a little less vodka...
*tosses Dennis da Ogre some more vodka*
You need moreTier XXX (Level -XXX)
Pegasus Paladin!
Jesus H. Christ, stop f*cking saying that the riding dog needs to be second tier. IT'S NOT OVERPOWERED. Your ideas are stupid, wrong, and detrimental to the game as a whole.
I'd like to see a Build your Own Animal Companion section with the unification of Pets. Nothing sucks more then Cookie Cutter Character Templates. If it gets it's own section, we also might see appropriate feats make the feat list.Well the way I see it there would be one list with all the potential companions ranked by tier with something to tag each one for which class could pick it up.
Tier 1 (Level -0)
Dog - Druid, Rangers
Pony - Paladin, Ranger
Skunk - Druid, Ranger
Badger - Gnomes, Druids, RangersTier 2 (Level -2)
Riding Dog - Ranger, Paladin
Pikachu - Druid
Wolf - Druid, Ranger
Viper, Medium - DruidTier XXX (Level -XXX)
Gryphon - Ranger, Paladin
War Unicorn - Paladin
Otyugh - Rogue
Oelephant - Paladin, Ranger
Tarrasque - PaladinWell that's how I see it anyhow. Maybe a little less vodka...
No offense buddy, but screw this. Screw this in the ear. The thing people LIKE about the existing system is that it's open ended enough to let you customize your character. We should be focused on ADDing possibilities, not telling players how to play based on your games. Unless this list suddenly has about 10 options per class per level, you're way off base.
Every time you remove an option that used to exist, you lose players because, no matter what you think of the option, that might be somebody's favorite part of the game. I'm inclined to think there are more people having fun than there are "WHOA BREAKAGE" and things like this screw those players. If people like you get their way, paizo should really keep Beta on their website, as a lot of people will just end up playing that.
If you want something this precise and closed-ended, you can play 4e.
Apparently, druids don't need eagles anymore. HURFDURFDURF.
Good Lord. I like how the riding dog--despite being a CR 1 monster--is only available at level three. That's so stupid that it hurts.
Jesus H. Christ, stop f*cking saying that the riding dog needs to be second tier. IT'S NOT OVERPOWERED. Your ideas are stupid, wrong, and detrimental to the game as a whole.
You are so wrong in the head it isn't funny.
#1 it's a game.
#2 relax
#3 Jason's gonna do what he's gonna do regardless of whether you are an A*Hole on every thread on the board or not because this isn't a democracy.
#4 The point wasn't where the F*ing dog is but to show how I think the table should look
Apparently, druids don't need eagles anymore. HURFDURFDURF.
Good Lord. I like how the riding dog--despite being a CR 1 monster--is only available at level three. That's so stupid that it hurts.
Apparently you don't get the concept of an example... maybe you thought I was seriously suggesting the rogue gets a Otyugh animal companion also? Like the tarrasque in there?
No offense buddy, but screw this. Screw this in the ear.
No offense buddy but how is your reading comprehension?
Maybe you should have actually read the list and you would have realized I wasn't proposing anything other than the format before you went off the deep end.
You've repeatedly pushed for that stupid riding dog to be pushed back. It's ridiculous and preposterous and stupefying that anyone would actually consider the riding dog to be overpowered. What was your justification, again? That level 1 characters couldn't afford it?
I think PR's problem is that you want to unify the system, then control the hell out of what everything can get. And, as with before, you want to underpower the bottom tier because DRUIDS MUST SUFFER FOR WHAT THE 3.5 DEVELOPERS HAVE DONE!!!
You've repeatedly pushed for that stupid riding dog to be pushed back. It's ridiculous and preposterous and stupefying that anyone would actually consider the riding dog to be overpowered. What was your justification, again? That level 1 characters couldn't afford it?
You've repeatedly added pointless insults and add little or nothing to any conversation. Your witty conversation deserves no response.
I think PR's problem is that you want to unify the system, then control the hell out of what everything can get. And, as with before, you want to underpower the bottom tier because DRUIDS MUST SUFFER FOR WHAT THE 3.5 DEVELOPERS HAVE DONE!!!
Hahahahahahahaha
You guys are so damned funny.
Your ideas are the only laughing matter around here.
(BTW: Ba-zing. I'm full of bad one-liners.)
Hey, at least I've been polite enough to start one blanket thread on the topic. You've essentially just started 4 threads on the same thing (nerf the pet). Maybe you think that by spamming the same general idea over and over again, it will look like some kind of consensus. I don't know. I don't pretend to grasp your concept of game design.
Your ideas are the only laughing matter around here.
Hey, no problem, thanks for stopping by and cr*pping on the thread, come again soon.
Hey, at least I've been polite enough to start one blanket thread on the topic. You've essentially just started 4 threads on the same thing (nerf the pet). Maybe you think that by spamming the same general idea over and over again, it will look like some kind of consensus. I don't know. I don't pretend to grasp your concept of game design.
Apparently you don't grasp the concept of this thread either because it has nothing to do with nerfing the dog... or nerfing anything. Maybe you should read the OP instead of having some laser focus on one line in my obviously humorous example.
Honestly Dennis, a lot of people have tried to work with you on the other threads, going so far as to agree with you on a lot of things. But, instead of trying to work with those people, you insist on being some kind of control freak, and arguing with those players about minor things while pushing nerfs for lowly things like horses (OMG a warhorse is SO powerful) under the premise that "A lot of players" meaning three of you, think they're ungodly broken. People have every right to come on here and tell you that trying to nerf already underpowered options is dumb.
Hey, at least I've been polite enough to start one blanket thread on the topic. You've essentially just started 4 threads on the same thing (nerf the pet). Maybe you think that by spamming the same general idea over and over again, it will look like some kind of consensus. I don't know. I don't pretend to grasp your concept of game design.Apparently you don't grasp the concept of this thread either because it has nothing to do with nerfing the dog... or nerfing anything. Maybe you should read the OP instead of having some laser focus on one line in my obviously humorous example.
I'm talking about your little example. A unified system is fine, as long as it looks nothing like that. Though, the AC, familiar, Mount, etc. currently work completely differently, and I worry they'll lose their feel under one system.
|
I like the idea of system unity but I don't think that there should be a shift in the tiers yet. It's a Riding dog for crying out loud. All the character could do is RIDE it! I think that unifying the system should be the idea discussed here, not what you deem is tier worthy.
Now to the discussion at hand. Pet rules are fairly similiar. Pets of most classes gain abilities at the same levels are are quite similiar in gain. Paladins and Rangers are just 4 levels behind the curve while Druids, Clerics, Sorcerers, and Wizards get a slightly stronger one. Other than the flavors of each animal, I don't see much difference between the abilities gained. Maybe the HD/HP system should be a little more unified for animals?
I like the idea of system unity but I don't think that there should be a shift in the tiers yet. It's a Riding dog for crying out loud. All the character could do is RIDE it! I think that unifying the system should be the idea discussed here, not what you deem is tier worthy.
Now to the discussion at hand. Pet rules are fairly similiar. Pets of most classes gain abilities at the same levels are are quite similiar in gain. Paladins and Rangers are just 4 levels behind the curve while Druids, Clerics, Sorcerers, and Wizards get a slightly stronger one. Other than the flavors of each animal, I don't see much difference between the abilities gained. Maybe the HD/HP system should be a little more unified for animals?
Yes, I'm sorry for derailing the thread.
I agree, mostly. Well, I think we could smoosh it into two systems. Honestly the familiar is so completely different from the others that I'd hate to see it streamlined into the others, but there's no reason Paladins, Druids, and Rangers can't be using the same system. The only place I see trouble is intelligence. Right now, aside from a blurb someplace somewhere about other options, the paladin mount is probably a warhorse, or something similar, which means it doesn't pack a whole lot of power. The druid, on the other hand, gets a whole menagerie of choices, such as the dire bear, which are powerful, but stupid. Giving such an option human intelligence could have serious ramifications. So, how could we balance "cowboy and his supersmart horse" with the wide array of druid options, while keeping both possibilities?
|
|
Why does it have to be different though? That's the point I'm making. Each of the "Pets" in 3.5 had similiar gains but the druid had the cream of the crop followed by the Ranger. Sorcerers, Wizards, and Paladins had limited choices and had more restrictions on what happened when their's died. So maybe the lists should be opened up so everyone has more choice, less restrictions on death, and a uniform system of what each gains and at what level so that there is less confusion on what pet should have what.
Why does it have to be different though? That's the point I'm making. Each of the "Pets" in 3.5 had similiar gains but the druid had the cream of the crop followed by the Ranger. Sorcerers, Wizards, and Paladins had limited choices and had more restrictions on what happened when their's died. So maybe the lists should be opened up so everyone has more choice, less restrictions on death, and a uniform system of what each gains and at what level so that there is less confusion on what pet should have what.
I don't know why the druid is top dog of the animal companion classes but it's likely to stay there. The paladin can retain his flavor by being limited to mounts but still benefit from a unified set of rules. For that matter it would be cool for the ranger's companion to be a little differentiated from the druid's. Heck like I mentioned above I think racial mount bonuses would be cool too!
I do think wizards and sorcerers should keep something different, the familiar is not really a combatant the way the other Animal Companions are. I think it should stay that way.
Jason let slip in the chat tonight that he's working on a rebuild so I'm gonna wait and see what he puts on the table before I put any more efforts into armchair game design.
|
|
I wasn't looking for the abilities to change in a combatant type of way but more along the lines of they evolve past normal animals in the same way. Other flavor elements could be added in as well. So familiars would gain more HD/HP and the abilities that all the animals of a magic user/divine caster would have but the wizards familiar is smarter than the normal while vs. the druid's animal companion which is hardier(the ac bonus and stat boosts). When I mean common abilites, I'm talking about things like Share Spell, Empathic link, etc.
I wasn't looking for the abilities to change in a combatant type of way but more along the lines of they evolve past normal animals in the same way. Other flavor elements could be added in as well. So familiars would gain more HD/HP and the abilities that all the animals of a magic user/divine caster would have but the wizards familiar is smarter than the normal while vs. the druid's animal companion which is hardier(the ac bonus and stat boosts). When I mean common abilites, I'm talking about things like Share Spell, Empathic link, etc.
To be honest I haven't compared that end of things but I agree that they should work the same.
Since the druid is widely regarded as being a more powerful class than the ranger, why not reverse the pet rules for them? The RANGER gets the full power pet, and the druid gets the x-3 pet. Fluff-wise, you could sell it as the ranger having a narrower connection to nature (a hunting partner), while the druid tends to deal with entire ecosystems, and thus does not make that narrow affective connection as easily as the ranger.
As for unifying the rules, I'm all in favor of removing tricks from the animal companions and just having them function by the familiar's rule set. That streamlines the game and lets the fiddly bits of handle animal apply only to those creatures you DON'T have a mystical connection to. Heck, given the bonuses that rangers and druids have with their animal companions, it's not as if they have to devote many ranks to that skill in the first place.
Since the druid is widely regarded as being a more powerful class than the ranger, why not reverse the pet rules for them? The RANGER gets the full power pet, and the druid gets the x-3 pet. Fluff-wise, you could sell it as the ranger having a narrower connection to nature (a hunting partner), while the druid tends to deal with entire ecosystems, and thus does not make that narrow affective connection as easily as the ranger.
As for unifying the rules, I'm all in favor of removing tricks from the animal companions and just having them function by the familiar's rule set. That streamlines the game and lets the fiddly bits of handle animal apply only to those creatures you DON'T have a mystical connection to. Heck, given the bonuses that rangers and druids have with their animal companions, it's not as if they have to devote many ranks to that skill in the first place.
See, I disagree with this idea, because the Handle Animal mechanics provide reasonable limits on what your Animal Companion can do. Tactical retargetting is usually a free Handle Animal action which are practically autosuccesses for Druids and Rangers who have trained their animals tactically, but asking the animal to prioritize targets, do things that they would normally balk at, etc., require move actions to push the animal. Plus, Handle Animal requires the animal to have the ability to perceive it's handler, in order to accept commands. Using familiar mechanics alters this in pretty substantial ways.
I wasn't looking for the abilities to change in a combatant type of way but more along the lines of they evolve past normal animals in the same way. Other flavor elements could be added in as well. So familiars would gain more HD/HP and the abilities that all the animals of a magic user/divine caster would have but the wizards familiar is smarter than the normal while vs. the druid's animal companion which is hardier(the ac bonus and stat boosts). When I mean common abilites, I'm talking about things like Share Spell, Empathic link, etc.
I think I disagree, but we might actually agree.
I think that 3rd edition familiars have always been fairly lame and forgettable, as illustrated in the Order of the Stick. With the introduction of arcane bonds, familiars are now a suboptimal choice. I'd like to see familiars be a reasonable class feature and not a stuffed animal with a static bonus, one that gets more arcane as the caster increases in caster level. However, I don't think they need to get more strength, dexterity, hit dice, armor class, etc. the way that mounts and companions do.
For example - the new Share Spell only lets 'personal' spells be cast on the creature. That means that animal companions count as a person for transport via plants, but also that familiars count as a person for teleports. That'll sound the death knell for familiars if it doesn't get changed, but I can understand wanting to avoid the 'druid buffs himself and his companion using wild shape and natural spell' that was common in 3.x.
So the familiar and animal companion would get some shared abilities like evasion, but I think they would be different enough to be two charts.
For example - the new Share Spell only lets 'personal' spells be cast on the creature. That means that animal companions count as a person for transport via plants, but also that familiars count as a person for teleports. That'll sound the death knell for familiars if it doesn't get changed, but I can understand wanting to avoid the 'druid buffs himself and his companion using wild shape and natural spell' that was common in 3.x.
I'm not sure, I think the problems with share spell went beyond druid buffing. One I can think of is Polymorph Self (Beast Shape) where under D&D you could essentially turn your familiar into a combat ready creature. I'm not 100% sure how that worked though because I never used familiars.
I think the biggest problem with familiars is that most people didn't know how to use them effectively and the people who did know how to use them effectively used them in ways which they were not really designed to be used (Polymorphed into a dragon and delivering touch spells).
Take that with a grain of salt though, I've always trading ACs out using optional class features so I don't have much experience with them.
I'd be ok with a Druid having a Familiar instead of an Animal Companion. It wouldn't be nearly as combat effective as an Animal Companion, touch spells or not. But I think that it would maintain the flavor of the class ability while giving the designers the room to maneuver to flesh out Wild Shape a bit more, which seems to be the ability that both the players and the designers have the most interest in building on. And then the Rangers can have a full-advancement Animal Companion, and everyone will be happy.
Since the druid is widely regarded as being a more powerful class than the ranger, why not reverse the pet rules for them? The RANGER gets the full power pet, and the druid gets the x-3 pet. Fluff-wise, you could sell it as the ranger having a narrower connection to nature (a hunting partner), while the druid tends to deal with entire ecosystems, and thus does not make that narrow affective connection as easily as the ranger.
As for unifying the rules, I'm all in favor of removing tricks from the animal companions and just having them function by the familiar's rule set. That streamlines the game and lets the fiddly bits of handle animal apply only to those creatures you DON'T have a mystical connection to. Heck, given the bonuses that rangers and druids have with their animal companions, it's not as if they have to devote many ranks to that skill in the first place.
Honestly, this has been discussed to death in other threads, and isn't overly popular. I think 'unified system' implies that druids and rangers use the same thing at the same level.
For example - the new Share Spell only lets 'personal' spells be cast on the creature. That means that animal companions count as a person for transport via plants, but also that familiars count as a person for teleports. That'll sound the death knell for familiars if it doesn't get changed, but I can understand wanting to avoid the 'druid buffs himself and his companion using wild shape and natural spell' that was common in 3.x.I'm not sure, I think the problems with share spell went beyond druid buffing. One I can think of is Polymorph Self (Beast Shape) where under D&D you could essentially turn your familiar into a combat ready creature. I'm not 100% sure how that worked though because I never used familiars.
I think the biggest problem with familiars is that most people didn't know how to use them effectively and the people who did know how to use them effectively used them in ways which they were not really designed to be used (Polymorphed into a dragon and delivering touch spells).
Take that with a grain of salt though, I've always trading ACs out using optional class features so I don't have much experience with them.
You mean you've traded familiars out, not ACs, right? I'd hate to think you were arguing this much over something you had no experience with...