I know that the obvious answer is for flavor purposes or possibly some other trick that another animal can perform, but to be honest I do believe that the 3-level lag doesn't make up for the fact that these companions are just plain better than most of the others. I am seriously considering granting the Halfling Ranger in my party extra abilities for his Dog at level 7 to balance it with the more elite creatures.
Please let me know if I'm missing anything. Doesn't it seem that, at level 7, these creatures are just plain more powerful than many of the the others?
I don't want to be a crank about it - I love love love Pathfinder! LOVE! But, it seems that all the trouble you guys went through creating the table on page 52 and coming up with the concept of individual animal adjustments to those stats for balance purposes seems to have been kind of made moot by the actual adjustments themselves being completely imbalanced from each other.
Sure I guess I can adjust stuff myself, but I was hoping I'd missed something about these creatures besides the level lag or perhaps there was some kind of reasoning behind all this. I don't want to make any houserules before really delving into why things I'm confused about exist.
Thanks!
Bump? :,(
Give it time. The Bestiary will be out and there might be some new options for enhancing the animals a bit more. If you want balance, just let the Dog advance a Hit Dice or two faster.
Yeah, I'll Rule 0 it for now. It just rubs me the wrong way that "some animals are more equal than others" after level 7. :)
To me, it's an issue of balanced versus balanced enough.
I'm a huge fan of animal companions in general, and I was very happy with the animal companion system paizo gave us. If I pick a dog for my companion (my personal favorite) I don't want or expect it to have as much raw power as a tiger, becaause that feels silly. What I do want (which is 'balanced enough') is for my dog to be able to play on the same battlefields as the tiger and still be somewhat of a use/threat, which I think the system gives us (same HD, stats that aren't too far off). The last thing I want (which I was very afraid would happen) is for all of the animal companions to be arbitrarily balanced with one another, as that system would feel completely generic, and my poor doggie would lose all her flavor.
Now, for even less powerful creatures, like a pony or a camel, I can see how you might feel that they got hosed, but let me put it to you this way: I don't think anyone who picks a pony or a camel is expecting it to be a powerhouse on the battlefield.
I feel the same way about the fighter versus the wizard. I would never play a dude with a sword and expect him to have the same raw power as someone who manipulates reality. He doesn't need to be just as powerful, he needs to (as a friend of mine says) be able to contribute meaningfully.
So, to answer your question, I think most players would say "Because I like this animal and it makes sense for my character." Yes, in an optimization-heavy tactical game (which is a valid playstyle, if not one I personally embrace) no one will take anything other than a tiger or a wolf, but those games are the minority (and, remember, by dint of being a forumite, you're probably already more mathematically involved and knowledgable than the average player, who will probably give the above answer).
That's the beast answer I can give.
EDIT: When I DM, I often consider the more practical consequences of a given pet. You can't bring a tiger into town, it might scare the villagers. And dungeons tend to have 5-ft spaces to crawl through (which is less to punish players and more because kobolds don't need 10 ft wide coridors).
So, to answer your question, I think most players would say "Because I like this animal and it makes sense for my character." Yes, in an optimization-heavy tactical game (which is a valid playstyle, if not one I personally embrace) no one will take anything other than a tiger or a wolf, but those games are the minority (and, remember, by dint of being a forumite, you're probably already more mathematically involved and knowledgable than the average player, who will probably give the above answer).
I can't argue against this point because you're right, the flavor should be enough. My problem comes with the following scenario: I have a player who likes to optimize. He is playing a Ranger. I also have a player who doesn't really do the optimization thing as much (an average-level optimizer I guess I'd say), and he's playing a Druid. What if my non-optimizing buddy gets to level 10 and he finds that the Ranger's animal companion (an "elite" type, say a wolf), although his level 10 animal companion has more hit dice, the Ranger's companion is basically better in every way?
I know life isn't fair and I probably should congratulate my Druid player for taking the high ground and playing a character for the character but to be honest, I'd rather not do that. I think there's plenty of room for individuality within a greater overlapping level of balance, lots of room. I don't think every stat should be the same, but there should be things which, though not useful in a fight, give them some kind of benefit in other ways.
IMHO, the Dog and the Wolf should have been part of the same stat block. Having said that, I think the Camel is actually a pretty great Animal Companion. It's fast and has the spit attack which is really great. It can also carry a metric crap-load of gear. I might go so far as to say I think the Camel might be balanced against the Wolf, not really in a fight, but balanced with other good stuff.
I don't want to caw too much about it because I like the rules in general regarding animal companions. I am happy just Rule 0-ing it; I was just hoping for a little insight maybe from the designers if I were wrong about something. Like perhaps I'd missed some rule giving the Level-4 power-up companions an extra boost later or possibly letting me know if there was some other balance reasoning behind the disparity between some of these that I hadn't noticed.
I don't like to Rule 0 things without thinking it through first and I think these boards give us a great opportunity to bounce our ideas off the designers to give their unique point of view regarding things. I know they don't post on every thread and you guys have given me plenty to think about and I think I should be able to make an informed decision on the matter.
Also, I totally get your point about the townsfolk. My campaign is high fantasy, however, so even in small villages the reaction wouldn't work very much towards a balance factor. The fully-grown Deionychus... that might actually cause a stir. Hehe.
I can't argue against this point because you're right, the flavor should be enough. My problem comes with the following scenario: I have a player who likes to optimize. He is playing a Ranger. I also have a player who doesn't really do the optimization thing as much (an average-level optimizer I guess I'd say), and he's playing a Druid. What if my non-optimizing buddy gets to level 10 and he finds that the Ranger's animal companion (an "elite" type, say a wolf), although his level 10 animal companion has more hit dice, the Ranger's companion is basically better in every way?
I know life isn't fair and I probably should congratulate my Druid player for taking the high ground and playing a character for the character but to be honest, I'd rather not do that. I think there's plenty of room for individuality within a greater overlapping level of balance, lots of room. I don't think every stat should be the same, but there should be things which, though not useful in a fight, give them some kind of benefit in other ways.
IMHO, the Dog and the Wolf should have been part of the same stat block. Having said that, I think the Camel is actually a pretty great Animal Companion. It's fast and has the spit attack which is really great. It can also carry a metric crap-load of gear. I might go so far as to say I think the Camel might be balanced against the Wolf, not really in a fight, but balanced with other good stuff.
I don't want to caw too much about it because I like the rules in general regarding animal companions. I am happy just Rule 0-ing it; I was just hoping for a little insight maybe from the designers if I were wrong about something. Like perhaps I'd missed some rule giving the Level-4 power-up companions an extra boost later or possibly letting me know if there was some other balance reasoning behind the disparity between some of these that I hadn't noticed.
I don't like to Rule 0 things without thinking it through first and I think these boards give us a great opportunity to bounce our ideas off the designers to give their unique point of view regarding things. I know they don't post on every thread and you guys have given me plenty to think about and I think I should be able to make an informed decision on the matter.
Also, I totally get your point about the townsfolk. My campaign is high fantasy, however, so even in small villages the reaction wouldn't work very much towards a balance factor. The fully-grown Deionychus... that might actually cause a stir. Hehe.
I dunno, if the druid is at least a little optimization savvy, I think the druids animal companion will compare favorably, even if he picks one that might be considered less that optimal (not a wolf, tiger, or veleciraptor). Who knows...he might even pick one of the above three. Even if he doesn't, the slightly less than optimal for combat pets have more non-combat uses than the optimal combat pets, and a 3 level gap can and will make a difference, especially if the druid takes a few pet buff spells for his pet.
Seems to me like your going to be running a game where optimal in combat doesn't equate to optimal everywhere else. The druids rewards may not be mechanically implied in the system, but they can be applied by a DM who rewards good character development and backstory/rp as much as he does the ability to kill.
When we playtested the Bastards of Erebus, I had a druid with an eagle. Beaky may not have been as powerful, but I knew I would be using entangle quite a bit, and I wanted to be able to send it in to savage the enemy without fear of getting entangled itself (this tactic, along with Beaky's fantastic 3-hit combo, had Sean frowning most sessions, heh).
Also, as someone else mentioned, I knew we would be starting in Westcrown, and I didn't think the locals would let me go wandering around with a lion (that would also make it hard to hide in most urban settings).
Thanks for the advice, gents. Hopefully all will be well. At any rate, the Druid player informed me he wants to be of the Desert and have a swarm companion.
I said yes.
So I have some work to do. LOL.
LOL. Scorpions?
LOL. Scorpions?
Start out with a small-sized creature swarm like snakes so that it doesn't have crazy damage reduction, then go into something else like scorpions or, later scarab beetles. I might make him take a feat or two to "pay" for the diminutive or fine creature swarms. Not sure right now. The advancement idea is that it starts out with these creatures and, over time, they are killed in combat and replaced by other creatures, and we're always working with, like, the majority. So to make a long story short, it'll be a mixed swarm of desert creatures.
Moved to RPG Discussion.
Neat....Also consider dogs and horses get along ok, but most horses/ponys avoid wolves and run in fear from most others on the list. So a penalty(decreasing the longer the animals in question have been around) to animal based skill checks as well as ok the townfolk might understand the lion is safe but understanding and belief are two different things...and besides what sane inkeeper will allow a lion in the commonroom(scares away business) while a traveller and a dog(even a big dog) is more normal....
I think it all depends on what kind of game you're playing. If you're running a game set on the steppe's (and lets be honest this is the single most underdocumented and unlikely to be played campaign setting) then, if all combat is mounted, a horse animal companion starts looking pretty good.
On the other hand in the 3.5 city game I'm playing in the most useful animal we've come across is a blood hound.
Just a comment on balancing. I give the druids in game grief for threatening ACs. That tiger gets shot at by the city guard in towns, same with the bear! Those are dangerous animals! I do allow magic items though, like a harness of disguise. Although when the russian wolfhound at your side growls like a tiger or purrs, you get the once over by the guards. :)
Glad I finally found a thread that discusses this topic, and I want to ask more specifically about the Bear. It is smaller then the wolf, has lower strength, con, and natural armor then the wolf, not to mention the lack of a trip. He makes up for it with a full attack of claws, but he is also slower and has smaller damage dice due to his size. From a roleplaying aspect, and a combat vs non-combat perspective, my question is how is it balanced? I understand the practical applications of a dog as a less fearsome creature, and in a city setting, extremely useful, and the idea of a camel or horse doubling as a mount. What about the bear? Smaller, less robust, and not as strong as the wolf. Is there something I'm missing here?
+1 I'm glad I read the whole thread before posting, because the bear was going to be my example too.
There's no reason why a bear should be less dangerous in combat than a wolf! (If I had to fight a bear or a wolf irl, I'd take the wolf every time.) But, bear starts at small size, and wolf starts at medium. I don't think every animal has to be reworked, but there are certainly a few who got blessed with excellent stats or cursed with lousy stats.
There's no reason why the species couldn't have been a bit more balanced, [i]including[i] the non-combat and non DPR elements.
Valuable traits:
- Flight (especially before level 5)
- Ability to be ridden
- Socially acceptable
- Stealth
- DPR potential
- Combat maneuvers
As a GM, I'm generally willing to house-rule an animal if needed, but it really shouldn't be necessary.
We have a ranger with constrictor snake that is pretty awesome. Works really well for getting captives to interrogate. I forget what his name is, but it is basically swahili for Mr. Huggles.
We have a ranger with constrictor snake that is pretty awesome. Works really well for getting captives to interrogate. I forget what his name is, but it is basically swahili for Mr. Huggles.
Yeah constrictors are pretty awesome for debuffing a foe through grapple, definitely one of my favorites
The viper isn't bad after it finally hits it's level either. The boar is plain nasty carrying lots of AC and the gore works like a two hand fighter which is nice (though he'll only get two attacks which isn't so much). The Ape has lots of potential due to what it is and how early it advances.