LOL, that would be badass. I didn't want to ride one, I was just wondering where it was on the list. Though, I could probably just use a dog. I suppose it's more like a wolf than it is a Dog. Err...is it?It depends on the size of the Hyena you're talking about. The largest Hyena out there is the Spotted Hyena, which would be comparable to the Wolf.
And I must recant something that I said earlier - it WOULD be appropriate for the Spotted Hyena to take Improved Natural Attack (Bite). That would put it in the same bite range of the Brown Bear, which is fairly accurate.
On a semi-related sidenote I kinda wanna be this guy . Also, it's depressing how much some parts of the world (Nigeria, in this case) actually resemble road warrior.
Hey, I have a question I haven't seen answered. Are we to assume that this system negates the bonus-sharing between the ranger and it's pet?
...I would not assume that.
Hey, I have a question I haven't seen answered. Are we to assume that this system negates the bonus-sharing between the ranger and it's pet?No, I would not assume that.
I would think that means that only the general progression of animal companions is standardized. That makes dedicated/unique abilities for animal companions as part of the character class still possible, which is a good thing in principle, but I am worried that this will overpower the animal companions both vis-a-vis 3.X edition and perhaps even more importantly vis-a-vis the alternative options to taking animal companions, which are already relatively sub-par to begin with.
I would really like to see something done with regards to equalizing the power of the animal companions and the alternative class features. Perhaps a combination of depowering animal companions a bit while empowering those features, but I am sceptical of depowering being viable among most fans, so I guess empowering the other options would have to do.
I almost think it would be better, while retaining the standardization introduced in this system, to return to the 1st level/4th/7th/10th/etc tiers of animals (allowing your Companion to "grow up" into a higher Tier of itself if appropriate), while not allowing certain creature types before 4th/7th/10th/etc Level (Jason's proposal seems to lose "granularity" in that all Companions not requiring a Feat are acquirable at 1st level). An "Improved Companion" Feat could still be required to access higher Tiers (beyond 7th?), like it does in Jason's proposal, but the "presentation" could stay more similar to the current 3.5/Beta... ???
With discussion about the effects of "growing" Pets on Weapon Finesse, as well as the bizarre state of Snake stats (from the MM, like Jason said), I also thought a "revised Tier system" (more similar presentation to the 3.5/Beta system) would work better for another reason: For certain cases (Weapon Finesse - DEX dependent, Poison Attacks - Size bonus/penalty to melee) you would NOT want your Companion to automatically grow larger. Indeed, even though it's not represented well in the standard Companion lists, it's plausible that HIGH level (12+) Companions could be Small or Tiny - Poisonous creatures especially.
By including "Juvenile" Creatures in the Companion Chart, the same goals can largely be achieved, but as I mentioned above, not force every Creature Type to either be available at 1st level in some form or another, or require a Feat to gain access to - in other words, better granularity than the proposed system. Wording to allow "Juvenile" or "Lesser" Companions to "grow" into their Adult/Greater Forms would still work, but such Physical/Size "growth" could be more optional, such as the Weapon Finesse/Poisonous Companions who you don't necessarily WANT to be larger... (they could just 'molt' or grow into a more potent form or abilities, for example - a small bird could even gain (Temporary, for balance) Blinding Attacks...)
Likewise, other "improvements" besides simple Growth/Maturation could link different Tiers of Companions, such as Adult Bear->Dire Bear, or Common Viper->Dire Viper->"Emerald Death Viper"? Not every Companion Type has to have a multi-tier progression, or any progression at all, though most could have a Dire variant.
Hey, I have a question I haven't seen answered. Are we to assume that this system negates the bonus-sharing between the ranger and it's pet?No, I would not assume that.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Oh. My bad. I have a ranger player who will be quite pleased with this turn of events.
|
4. There are some companions that I feel are maybe a little too good and might need to be scaled back for the low levels. I am curious to see which ones the community thinks that is. I feel that some of the companions suffer from the opposite problem and are too weak.
There's no reason to take a dog companion over a wolf is one I can think of. Maybe let dogs learn double the number of bonus tricks as they're more easily trained?
I dunno. Is riding a giant wolf cool? Hell yes. Can I take it into a dungeon filled with steep climbs and 5 foot passages? no, it won't fit, and nobody's strong enough to pulley the damn thing up the wall. That's how I feel about all of the companion lists.
The problem is, that in terms of 'balance' and playtesting, we're concerning ourselves overmuch with combat, as if we don't have skill-based missions, or roleplaying scenarios determining our success (not that the latter has a ton to do with this). Personally (and this is coming from somebody who favors smaller, lower-end pets), I would like to see more involved rules for the tactical or logistical constraints of a large pet, rather than arbitrarily deciding that a tiger and a bobcat have have exactly the same power.
Seems like you already answered your own request...
Rules like:
Pshaw, you're an easy one to please!
Rules like:
Pshaw, you're an easy one to please!
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
:-)
That's funny, half the people thought I was disagreeable in the last couple AC threads. Well, maybe a quarter.
Really, I'm pretty pleased with this system. Are all options equal? no, but they can't really be any more than a cleric can be 'better' than a wizard. It's situational. Are they close enough to get rid of the "Well, my horse can't do crap. I wish I'd decided to get a dire bear like my buddy?" Close enough for me. I want the options to feel very different. I'm not above playing with a pet with a few less str and a couple less attacks than the guy next to me, as long as they can survive and are at least streamlined enough to not be completely ineffective. Too much power level tweaking will end up with one pet with absolutely no flavor or variety. If anything, rather than give the 'powerful' pets a nerf, I'd give the weaker pets some noncombat bonuses. I'd rather see those tacked on than any more power level tweaking. How about some more class skills or skill bonuses, or other special abilities?
Just wanted to put up a quick example of how Animal Companions with high dex get hurt by the Small->Medium transistion.
Here's a badger for a 3rd level druid.
STR: 11 (0) DEX: 18 (+4) CON: 15 (+2) INT: 2 (-4) WIS: 12 (+1) CHA: 10 (0)
Init: +4 Speed: 30 ft.
---------------- Defenses -----------------------
HP: 24.5
AC: 19 flat-foot: 15 touch: 15 (/ )
Fort +5 Ref +7 Will +2
---------------- Offenses -----------------------
melee : 2 claws +7 (1d3+0)
melee : bite +2 (1d4+0)
BAB: +2 CMB: +5-------------------------------------------------
[/b]Rage
---------------- Special Abilities -----------------------
[b]Link, share spells
[/b]Evasion
[b]Feats: Weapon Finesse, Agile Maneuvers, Blind-Fight
So AC:19, 2 Claws +7 to hit, Bite +2
Now the 4th level, size medium upgrade:
STR: 15 (+2) DEX: 16 (+3) CON: 19 (+4) INT: 2 (-4) WIS: 12 (+1) CHA: 10 (0)
Init: +3 Speed: 30 ft.
---------------- Defenses -----------------------
HP: 42
AC: 17 flat-foot: 14 touch: 13 (/ )
Fort +8 Ref +7 Will +2
---------------- Offenses -----------------------
melee : 2 claws +6 (1d4+2)
melee : bite +1 (1d6+2)
BAB: +3 CMB: +6-------------------------------------------------
[/b]Rage
---------------- Special Abilities -----------------------
[b]Link, share spells
[/b]Evasion
[b]Ability score increase
Feats: Weapon Finesse, Agile Maneuvers, Blind-Fight
So AC:17, 2 Claws +6 to hit, Bite +1
In spite of an increase in BAB the attack bonuses all go down and the AC is reduced to 17. On average damage goes up by 3.
So what if the AC was just given +2 STR, +2 CON like the eagle?
STR: 13 (+1) DEX: 18 (+4) CON: 17 (+3) INT: 2 (-4) WIS: 12 (+1) CHA: 10 (0)
Init: +4 Speed: 30 ft.
---------------- Defenses -----------------------
HP: 38
AC: 17 flat-foot: 14 touch: 13 (/ )
Fort +8 Ref +7 Will +2
---------------- Offenses -----------------------
melee : 2 claws +8 (1d3+1)
melee : bite +3 (1d4+0)
BAB: +3 CMB: +6
-------------------------------------------------
[/b]Rage
---------------- Special Abilities -----------------------
[b]Link, share spells
[/b]Evasion
[b]Ability score increase
Feats: Weapon Finesse, Agile Maneuvers, Blind-Fight
AC:19, 2 Claws +8 to hit, Bite +3
The Attack Bonus for the claws would be +8, average damage is 2 higher than it was at third level but 2 less than the medium sized version.
I think 2 extra point damage is a poor trade for the +2 attack bonus and would prefer to see DEX based animals either not move up or maybe not take a hit to DEX when they upgrade. Strength based animals are not affected nearly as bad (though they also take the 2 point AC hit).
well, I think the idea is that there are drawbacks. I mean, you could always give that +2 dex +2 con advancement as an alternate advancement tier (instead of growing to medium size), but I'm questioning if that will start to overcomplicate the system.
I think people might be getting a little TOO hung up on the balance issue. The goal is to make things more equal, not exactly equal.
I don't see the big deal in some places the camel will be far better then horses. Some things brake down to flavor and not pure numbers . YMMV
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I don't see the big deal in some places the camel will be far better then horses. Some things brake down to flavor and not pure numbers . YMMV
I agree, but also think that the camel's flavor should be supported in the rules, primarily by granting it the ability to store water and have reduced movement penalties in deserts due to its feet being adapted to sandy environments compared to horses, etc.
|
I don't see the big deal in some places the camel will be far better then horses. Some things brake down to flavor and not pure numbers . YMMVI agree, but also think that the camel's flavor should be supported in the rules, primarily by granting it the ability to store water and have reduced movement penalties in deserts due to its feet being adapted to sandy environments compared to horses, etc.
Bingo, also is it really going to break the game to let it at 4th level treat it's bite as a primary. This isn't run-o-da-mill camel #4 this is Arakon the desert scourge's faithful companion that has carried him through countless battles.
The poor camel is just sad right now
well, I think the idea is that there are drawbacks. I mean, you could always give that +2 dex +2 con advancement as an alternate advancement tier (instead of growing to medium size), but I'm questioning if that will start to overcomplicate the system.
This is why I think it's best to "half-revert" to the Level-based Tier Chart, and allow individual animals to "grow" or "molt" into "Adult" or "Dire" or whatever versions of themselves (this can be indicated graphically by arrows linking Creatures on the chart, or just Juvenile X / X / Dire X in the Creature Names). Poisonous Vipers, for example, don't necessarily need to GROW Larger, if that isn't relavent to their schtick.
This solution would be intuitive for 3.5 players, since it's basically the same (sans any changes to which companions fit in which tier) but explicitly allows companions to "grow up" into their next version. For new players, it's easy because everything is on a chart, and you don't have to worry about details like the "Adult" Version stats being located at the end of each creature type, you just reference the Tier & Creature you're interested in...
|
|
Agreed, instead of making 'mandatory' adjustments to medium from small...it could be an either/or situation...'upgrade aniamls that are naturally medium or large' (so you essentially have a juvenile version as your animal companion initially) or if the aniaml starts out small...then +2 to Str and Dex.
In addition I agree on making sure the 'flavor' of the animal companion be supported by rules....Camels should be able to last without water and have improved move on 'non-packed' terrain.
Heh, Thanks, just glad I could help.Love most of the changes, and the few things I might quibble over (such as the interaction between clerical channel energy and paladin channel energy) are minor, and have already been gone over by others. Since I already made one for the alternate rage and alternate animal companions, I threw together a PDF for the new paladin. Should make it easier to use without having to cross reference between Pathfinder, the SRD, and the new rules presented here.
The PDF for the new paladin can be found here. (http://rapidshare.com/files/152853507/Paladin.pdf.html)
Brodiggan...
Have I told you lately, that I love you
Have I told you lately, that I caaaaarrrrrrrre...
Hi nice work. I am gonna host this on my yahoo group. I will take them down at your say so
While I'm at it, I'll make the corrections/updates to the Animal Companion pdf.Ok, all done with the corrections, starting the barbarian now.
The updated Animal Companion pdf can be found here. (http://rapidshare.com/files/152798698/Animal_Companions.pdf.html)
The barbarian alternate rage pdf may be a bit longer, after looking at this and the pathfinder pdf side by side I think I'm going to change some settings here and there. When it's done, I'll post it here. (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinder RPG/design/barbarianFighterRanger/designFocusAlternateRageSystem)
Hi nice work. I am gonna host this on my yahoo group. I will take them down at your say so
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I don't see the big deal in some places the camel will be far better then horses. Some things brake down to flavor and not pure numbers . YMMVI agree, but also think that the camel's flavor should be supported in the rules, primarily by granting it the ability to store water and have reduced movement penalties in deserts due to its feet being adapted to sandy environments compared to horses, etc.Bingo, also is it really going to break the game to let it at 4th level treat it's bite as a primary. This isn't run-o-da-mill camel #4 this is Arakon the desert scourge's faithful companion that has carried him through countless battles.
The poor camel is just sad right now
Didn't the camel in 1st and 2nd edition have a spit attack that could blind foes? That would also be a good thing to add to make them a more viable choice.
I think people might be getting a little TOO hung up on the balance issue. The goal is to make things more equal, not exactly equal.
I agree. A Druid with a Penguin Animal Companion is NOT going to have the same kinds of advantages that a Druid with a Wolf would have - nor should they. A Druid that has an Apex Predator is going to have a more combat effective Animal Companion then a Camel or a Pony. And I'm willing to bet that you're going to have a much easier time of bringing a Large Dog into town with you then a Large Wolf.
Also: I'm all for allowing players to refrain from "upsizing" their pets once they reach a certain level, but allowing them to "upsize" in such a way that they get all of the Size bonuses but none of the penalties is kind of silly.
I agree, but also think that the camel's flavor should be supported in the rules, primarily by granting it the ability to store water and have reduced movement penalties in deserts due to its feet being adapted to sandy environments compared to horses, etc.
The general feeling that I'm getting from people is that they want all of the Animals re-written so that they are 1) more realistic and 2) better balanced against one another. Am I off the mark with this assessment?
Because here's a shocker: I'm actually in favor of this.
|
|
Brodiggan Gale
My local gaming store thanks you for the excellent work done on your PDFs of the Pathfinder varinat rules. Very professional.
We posted them (after laminating them) on the bulletin board for our local convention this weekend and they recieved more attention thatn anything except the [b]Monsterpacolypse9/b] demo. Even more than the 4E modules being run by the local RPGA reps.
I agree, but also think that the camel's flavor should be supported in the rules, primarily by granting it the ability to store water and have reduced movement penalties in deserts due to its feet being adapted to sandy environments compared to horses, etc.The general feeling that I'm getting from people is that they want all of the Animals re-written so that they are 1) more realistic and 2) better balanced against one another. Am I off the mark with this assessment?
Because here's a shocker: I'm actually in favor of this.
Not really. I have (and have gotten) the opposite feeling. I mean, a little tweaking would be nice, but I actually think the posted system is quite good. How can we make them more realistic AND balanced against one another? The only way to make things realistic is to screw some players and the only way to really balance things is to have one pet with different flavor text. As it exists (minus a little tweaking), I think Jason pretty much hit what we need on the mark.
The general feeling that I'm getting from people is that they want all of the Animals re-written so that they are 1) more realistic and 2) better balanced against one another. Am I off the mark with this assessment?
Yes. Pretty much. Great idea, has a few issues with the details.
|
|
Not really. I have (and have gotten) the opposite feeling. I mean, a little tweaking would be nice, but I actually think the posted system is quite good. How can we make them more realistic AND balanced against one another? The only way to make things realistic is to screw some players and the only way to really balance things is to have one pet with different flavor text. As it exists (minus a little tweaking), I think Jason pretty much hit what we need on the mark.
Yeah, I agree that people seem to like it. I like it too, although I think that level-3 for the Ranger is still too weak.
I would love if you could simply choose to give your animal companion a bonus to attibutes (be it +2st +2dex or whatever) rather to have it grow.
I think that the catch here is simply giving the druida/ranger an OPTION. You can increase it in size, and bring some good combat bonuses (for the most part), or your could give them a small bonus.
I know many players that would want to keep their wolf companion medium rather than large, for example.
In any case, this would just add a line or two of text, wouldn't it? "Instead of having your animal companion grow in size, you can choose to forego this and giving him a bonus...."
I think giving the AC a choice between getting bigger and getting a small bonus to a stat would work well.
I think the ideas in Jason's proposal are good, but should be presented in a way that stays with the "Tier system".
New Tiers may be appropriate to add (giving more granularity), but the "Adult" or "Greater/Lesser" versions of Companions should just be appropriate options amongst others at the Tier they sit in. The Baby/Adult dichotomy is really just a convenient in-character way to allow Companions to upgrade to higher Tiers - It's not even necessary to give EVERY Companion Type a "Baby/Adult" version...
That said, I'd love to see:
-The "Level Scaling" Save Bonuses to become ALL GOOD, to better differentiate the 20th lvl Riding Dog from T-Rex.
-Elven Cats, Blink Dogs, and the like at mid/higher tiers...?
-more Feat Options for the Companions, to really give them unique abilities.
These can be type-unique, i.e. small birds & spitting creatures get blinding attacks,
but can also simply include the Monster Feats as well as PC Feats.
Higher-level abilities, either thru the Level Scaling Bonus, or BAB-tied "Companion Feats", could include being able to cast low-level spells from owner's list as SLAs, Spell Resistance...? I don't think the aim should should be for a 20th level dog to be combat equivalent to the T-Rex (though still SURVIVABLE at that level), but it should have "amazing" abilities... if you get my drift???
EDIT:
Brodiggan Gale
My local gaming store thanks you for the excellent work done on your PDFs of the Pathfinder varinat rules. Very professional.
We posted them (after laminating them) on the bulletin board for our local convention this weekend and they recieved more attention thatn anything except the [b]Monsterpacolypse9/b] demo. Even more than the 4E modules being run by the local RPGA reps.
Seriously? Heh, sweet. Thank you. I do this sort of thing for a living, but it's still good to hear. Feel free to use em as you wish, the one thing I'd say though is please remember that Paizo is entirely within their rights if they ask you to take em down or cease distribution, as any artwork in them is entirely their copyright. The text may be OGL (I think), but I'm not sure exactly how that applies to the art within, and I'm guessing it doesn't apply at all. (Though hopefully they won't smite me down for putting them together)
I hope. ::grin::
|
|
...please remember that Paizo is entirely within their rights if they ask you to take em down or cease distribution, as any artwork in them is entirely their copyright. The text may be OGL (I think), but I'm not sure exactly how that applies to the art within...
I hope they don't mind. Consider it free advertising and raisng interest in thier product line. I support it as best as I can on my own, but spreading the word helps increase Paizo sales of Pathfinder at our LFGS.
...please remember that Paizo is entirely within their rights if they ask you to take em down or cease distribution, as any artwork in them is entirely their copyright. The text may be OGL (I think), but I'm not sure exactly how that applies to the art within...I hope they don't mind. Consider it free advertising and raisng interest in their product line. I support it as best as I can on my own, but spreading the word helps increase Paizo sales of Pathfinder at our LFGS.
Yeah, and I'm guessing they're keen enough on any word of mouth they'll allow it (maybe even encourage it? ::hopes:: ), I just wanted to be sure I made it clear I wasn't claiming I had any control over any sort of copyright.
Oh, and I have the final cleaned up Paladin PDF ready to go, you can download it here. (http://rapidshare.com/files/154582323/Paladin.pdf.html)
|
|
Yeah, and I'm guessing they're keen enough on any word of mouth they'll allow it (maybe even encourage it? ::hopes:: ), I just wanted to be sure I made it clear I wasn't claiming I had any control over any sort of copyright.
Oh, and I have the final cleaned up Paladin PDF ready to go, you can download it here. (http://rapidshare.com/files/154582323/Paladin.pdf.html)
To be honest, I'd be happy if they commissioned you to do it or at least hosted it themselves (although rapidshare is at least not as annoying as it used to be). Also someone less lazy than me should make a thread for aggregating these files.
Anyhow, thanks for the pdfs. Great work.
Yeah, and I'm guessing they're keen enough on any word of mouth they'll allow it (maybe even encourage it? ::hopes:: ), I just wanted to be sure I made it clear I wasn't claiming I had any control over any sort of copyright.
Oh, and I have the final cleaned up Paladin PDF ready to go, you can download it here. (http://rapidshare.com/files/154582323/Paladin.pdf.html)
To be honest, I'd be happy if they commissioned you to do it or at least hosted it themselves (although rapidshare is at least not as annoying as it used to be). Also someone less lazy than me should make a thread for aggregating these files.
Anyhow, thanks for the pdfs. Great work.
Thanks, and you're right, I should try and get all these together in a single thread at some point, and find better hosting. Hmmm...
Thanks, and you're right, I should try and get all these together in a single thread at some point, and find better hosting. Hmmm...
Email me and I'll host them for you.
mtbogre at that geee mail dut com place.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Just a quick update, the folks in this thread, and others, have made some fine points and I think I am going to include some options for adjusting your AC without increasing its size.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Excellent news. I think that is a great add for people who want to play with pets but want a little one that is still useful.
Just a small request, I was looking at a halfling paladin character and noticed that all the medium sized mount options have the same base speed of 40 and I was looking for something light and fast with maybe a speed of 50.
Would it be possible (or would it be unbalanced?) to add either the small cat or wolf option for paladin mount (the cat would be medium at 5th level) or add another option(I had an ostrich in mind but that's just me).
ostrich would be cool. or another bird of some type
ostrich would be cool. or another bird of some type
There's a otrich farm not far from our place (Montreal) and my little boys just love seeing them with their "dinosaur feet!", they're just fun to look at.
I've used riding birds in homebrews, be nice to see a few on the list
I've used riding birds in homebrews, be nice to see a few on the list
What stats do you use? Dinosaurs just seem either too big or just too mean. I was looking at the small cat as a base (with the sprint special ability) but the scores seem off.