I like it that we now have alternative features replacing animal companions, but for the most part, these options are far weaker than actually taking the companion (Druid domain, I am looking at you in particular, but others also qualify). It would be best if both choices were approximately equally useful/powerful. Can something be done about this?
In the case of the Paladin, maybe making divine bond stackable with existing magical bonuses of a weapon would help. I would also suggest that the weapon be used as a conduit for the aggresive version of the Lay on Hands ability, as sort of an extension of the Paladin. Hence, a Paladin could hit with the weapon and expend a swift action to deal extra damage to undead. To prevent abuse, we could make this use of Lay on Hands (we can call it something else, say Holy Strike) cost two normal uses.
I agree, the current choices aren't really up to par. Personally, I'd always take an AC, but right now, there's not a lot for people who choose not to take an AC (fools though they be). It was probably tough to balance since AC wasn't quite what they wanted, so I'm confident we'll see something to balance the two now that the new AC system seems so popular.
Do you think the current things should be boosted, or should different things be added?
That's a good question Velderan. One solution would be to depower the animal companion to the level of the other options, but that is unrealistic, which leaves us with only three reasonable possibilities or some combination thereof:
1) Boost the current alternate options
2) Add new features to supplement the current alternate options
3) Replace the current alternate options with something else entirely
To be honest, I would be fine with any of those approaches and a different approach might need to be taken depending on the class in question.
For example, I cannot realistically see how Druid's domain could be made sufficiently powerful to compensate for the lack of an animal companion, so that leaves only options 2 and 3 viable in this regard. To give an example of option two, perhaps the Druid could be allowed to pick more than one of the domains from the selection - though that could raise its own issues, as he would effectively become a nature Cleric.
By contrast, Paladin's Celestial Spirit option within the Divine Bond ability is certainly boostable in such a way that even taking option 1 would be feasible.
That's a good question Velderan. One solution would be to depower the animal companion to the level of the other options, but that is unrealistic, which leaves us with only three reasonable possibilities or some combination thereof:
1) Boost the current alternate options
2) Add new features to supplement the current alternate options
3) Replace the current alternate options with something else entirelyTo be honest, I would be fine with any of those approaches and a different approach might need to be taken depending on the class in question.
For example, I cannot realistically see how Druid's domain could be made sufficiently powerful to compensate for the lack of an animal companion, so that leaves only options 2 and 3 viable in this regard. To give an example of option two, perhaps the Druid could be allowed to pick more than one of the domains from the selection - though that could raise its own issues, as he would effectively become a nature Cleric.
By contrast, Paladin's Celestial Spirit option within the Divine Bond ability is certainly boostable in such a way that even taking option 1 would be feasible.
As a player who often plays the cleric, I wouldn't feel stepped-on if the druid got 2 domains instead of an animal companion. He still doesn't have a fraction of the healing/restoring ability of the cleric, is severely restricted in the tactical options available to him when he chooses not to have an animal companion, and let's face it, despite what all those druid-haters out there may say, the buff-and-tank cleric is much more of a damage-dealer than the buff-wildshape-tank druid.
As a player who often plays the cleric, I wouldn't feel stepped-on if the druid got 2 domains instead of an animal companion. He still doesn't have a fraction of the healing/restoring ability of the cleric, is severely restricted in the tactical options available to him when he chooses not to have an animal companion, and let's face it, despite what all those druid-haters out there may say, the buff-and-tank cleric is much more of a damage-dealer than the buff-wildshape-tank druid.That's a good question Velderan. One solution would be to depower the animal companion to the level of the other options, but that is unrealistic, which leaves us with only three reasonable possibilities or some combination thereof:
1) Boost the current alternate options
2) Add new features to supplement the current alternate options
3) Replace the current alternate options with something else entirelyTo be honest, I would be fine with any of those approaches and a different approach might need to be taken depending on the class in question.
For example, I cannot realistically see how Druid's domain could be made sufficiently powerful to compensate for the lack of an animal companion, so that leaves only options 2 and 3 viable in this regard. To give an example of option two, perhaps the Druid could be allowed to pick more than one of the domains from the selection - though that could raise its own issues, as he would effectively become a nature Cleric.
By contrast, Paladin's Celestial Spirit option within the Divine Bond ability is certainly boostable in such a way that even taking option 1 would be feasible.
Well that's good to hear. It might still infringe on the Cleric thematically with the two domains, but I suppose Druids are supposed to be priests of nature anyway, so it might not be such a huge problem.
Well, for the druid, I know two domains feels like my preference, but some have suggested choosing between AC and wildshape. As a druid character, I'm not overly troubled by this, but some might be.
As for the paladin, Jason did recently say that the weapon bond would stack with any pre-existing enchantments the weapon had, giving one the equivalent of a +16 in most games(of course, that's a lot of prefixes and suffixes one would have to add). This, to me, seemed like a fair option, as the weapon could potentially do you a whole lot more good than a horse, and the AC list IS pretty limited. The only thing I might do is give this weapon a potentially longer duration, since the horsie is always around.
As for the ranger, some rebalancing is probably necessary, but keep in mind that the beta ranger is based off of 1/2 AC progression instead of level -3 ac progression.
Well, for the druid, I know two domains feels like my preference, but some have suggested choosing between AC and wildshape. As a druid character, I'm not overly troubled by this, but some might be.
Well, Wildshape would certainly be a powerful enough option to chose regarding the Animal Companion, but I think that although the Druid has been overpowered in the past, the class has probably been nerfed sufficiently by now - not least by making Wildshape much weaker, so taking his Wildshape away, as an option of either an Animal Companion or Wildshape might be going a bit too far. I cannot say this with confidence though, as by pure circumstance, nobody in my group played the Beta Druid, so my experience there is lacking. Still, the Druid has historically been a popular option with my groups, so I want to see a viable alernative to its animal companion (and this applies to animal companions of other classes too).
As for the paladin, Jason did recently say that the weapon bond would stack with any pre-existing enchantments the weapon had, giving one the equivalent of a +16 in most games(of course, that's a lot of prefixes and suffixes one would have to add). This, to me, seemed like a fair option, as the weapon could potentially do you a whole lot more good than a horse, and the AC list IS pretty limited. The only thing I might do is give this weapon a potentially longer duration, since the horsie is always around.
Well, the stacking clarification does help, I suppose.
|
Well, for the druid, I know two domains feels like my preference, but some have suggested choosing between AC and wildshape. As a druid character, I'm not overly troubled by this, but some might be.
As for the paladin, Jason did recently say that the weapon bond would stack with any pre-existing enchantments the weapon had, giving one the equivalent of a +16 in most games(of course, that's a lot of prefixes and suffixes one would have to add). This, to me, seemed like a fair option, as the weapon could potentially do you a whole lot more good than a horse, and the AC list IS pretty limited. The only thing I might do is give this weapon a potentially longer duration, since the horsie is always around.
As for the ranger, some rebalancing is probably necessary, but keep in mind that the beta ranger is based off of 1/2 AC progression instead of level -3 ac progression.
No its not in the new AC rules it's back to level-3
I'm going to buck the trend on this one and say its fine the way it is. Here's why.
Without animal companion you get the domain abilities but can still cast charm animal and spend the time training one.
With animal companion you get the same kind of animal you could have charmed, but it gets extra HD and some abilities.
So the question is, do those extra HD and abilities equal a domain? If they do, then the current setup is balanced. If they don't, then the animal companion's abilities need to be adjusted to correctly compensate.
No its not in the new AC rules it's back to level-3
As for the ranger, some rebalancing is probably necessary, but keep in mind that the beta ranger is based off of 1/2 AC progression instead of level -3 ac progression.
I didn't think the new AC rules were official for druids though, only paladins were changed.... or did I miss it?