We have a group playing and the ranger just reached 4th level and opted for the animal option under hunter's bond.
The new core rule book states: The second option is to form a close bond with an animal companion. A ranger who selects an animal companion can choose from the following list: badger, bird, camel, cat (small), dire rat (see the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary), dog, horse, pony, snake (viper or constrictor), or wolf. If the campaign takes place wholly or partly in an aquatic environment, the ranger may choose a shark instead.
The player argued that the selection of animals was open to any animal as is described in the Druid's description.
I ruled that the bigger list for druid's was one of the advantages of taking that class.
We have tabled a decision for now, so I am asking for input from this group on whether a ranger is limited to just the animals listed in the ranger section or open to any animal as for a druid.
Thanks in advance for your input.
James Jacobs commented that the Ranger list is indeed restricted,
and the Paladin list probably should be as well even though it isn't per RAW.
But then the Bestiary comes out and says that all these new Animal Companions are available to Druids AND RANGERS.
Take your pick :-)
James Jacobs commented that the Ranger list is indeed restricted,
and the Paladin list probably should be as well even though it isn't per RAW.But then the Bestiary comes out and says that all these new Animal Companions are available to Druids AND RANGERS.
Take your pick :-)
Oh ... I've started a Ranger (yesterday was the first evening of play :)) and I didn't know this.
Opens up some new possibilities for when I reach level 4.
Where in the bestiary is this mentioned ?
I never realized how unclear the rules are on this. James Jacobs has been quoted as saying that the ranger list is different, but the beta release of the new level by level progression seemed pretty clear that ranger was just druid -3. What justification could there possible be for further nerfing of the ranger's AC?? The three level minus is bad enough, but to say the Ranger is better in combat so his companion should be much weaker AND easier to kill seems a tad off. We need an official ruling on whether the Ranger list is indeed different, or if it was an oversight in the reprinting.
link: see second part.
and it's hardly any sort of 'nerf' coming from 3.5. Rangers *DO* kick-ass against their favored enemies right now, and have plenty of other features, so I can see why Paizo prefers to make sure they don't step on Druids' (or Summoners soon) toes as a "primary pet class".
Looks Official to me! Wow, I don't see a reason to ever take a companion really. BTW, what is different about favored enemy? I missed something I guess. I wasn't much of a Ranger guy really, but can see no reason at all to play one now.
What use is a companion to a Ranger anyway? I see people say you can use it to scout and things like that, but how? Until you can communicate with it, (like at 8th level for the Ranger unless you blow spells) what good is it? I am serious on this, what advice does anyone have for our Ranger player now?
Looks Official to me! Wow, I don't see a reason to ever take a companion really. BTW, what is different about favored enemy? I missed something I guess. I wasn't much of a Ranger guy really, but can see no reason at all to play one now.
What use is a companion to a Ranger anyway? I see people say you can use it to scout and things like that, but how? Until you can communicate with it, (like at 8th level for the Ranger unless you blow spells) what good is it? I am serious on this, what advice does anyone have for our Ranger player now?
See the "Handle Animal" Skill.
Also, once you get to level 7, you can up your animal companions "Int" score to 3, then it can understand Common without Handle Animal.
Normally companions are mainly used in combat. Use the companion to flank attack and trip enemies.
The Cheetah is a good option for Rangers.
Using it to flank only really helps the two weapon fighter, and does nothing for the ranged specialist, which is what our Ranger picked. As for the handle animal skill, I agree a Ranger is better off just training an animal and not using the companion slot. Why get stuck with a 2 HD small sized cat with a CMB of -2 or so, when you could train a Tiger yourself? Share spells is silly and at higher levels the handle animal bonus of a companion is moot.
Why get stuck with a 2 HD small sized cat with a CMB of -2 or so, when you could train a Tiger yourself? Share spells is silly and at higher levels the handle animal bonus of a companion is moot.
You're right, why get stuck with 2 HD companion, when the Companion progression chart clearly shows how it's HD and Stats progress with level? (this is what PRPG majorly buffed, -3 Class Lvl vs. 1/2 Class Lvl)
The Handle Animal bonus pretty much makes it so you DON'T have to max ranks in Handle Animal to be able to Push your AC whenever you want (freeing those ranks for other skills). Share spells ISN'T so amazing with the Ranger spell list (Freedom of Movement and Longstrider are probably the only significant benefit), but it doesn't hurt.
Can you seriously not think of ANY abilities a Cheetah offers that are good at keeping your enemies where you want them if you're a Ranged Specialist??? (Hint: starts with T)
And if not a Cheetah*, Mounted Combat/Mounted Archery*/Ride-By Attack/Spirited Charge* with an actually survivable Horse (* depending if ranged/melee focus) seems like a pretty decent way to make use of an Animal Companion... Unless getting to Full Attack AND Move more than 5' is something you prefer not to do with Archer characters...? (I would just focus all the Horse's Feats and Gear on survivability for this usage: Toughness, all the Save Feats, maybe Agile Steps and Skill Focus: Acrobatics for Jumping/AoO avoidance)
*Wolf is probably a better Tripper, if slower, being larger & stronger: I'd bet a Trip-monster built Wolf with Imp Trip, Imp Natural Attack, Imp Vital Strike and Spring Attack could well take on a Dire Tiger AND well be useful for Caster harassment.
Also, the Companions with Scent (most all of them) are always good for pointing you in the direction of most Invisible enemies, and a free +2 from Aid Another seems SOMEWHAT relevant for a class as skill-focused as the Ranger...
But if you REALLY don't like an AC, there's always the OTHER Hunter's Bond option...
I DO like to make a full ranged attack and move more than 5', so I took RIDE SKILL! As for the AC builds, they will be great at 7th or 11th level when they are available. Right now the 11 hp wolf tripper will die a horrid death.
The animal companion can also do Aid Another as its attack action, granting either a +2 AC or +2 to hit against the target. Might be handy, sometimes.
Using it to flank only really helps the two weapon fighter, and does nothing for the ranged specialist, which is what our Ranger picked. As for the handle animal skill, I agree a Ranger is better off just training an animal and not using the companion slot. Why get stuck with a 2 HD small sized cat with a CMB of -2 or so, when you could train a Tiger yourself? Share spells is silly and at higher levels the handle animal bonus of a companion is moot.
So nobody melee's in your party?
And yes, you can just train a Tiger. Actually, you can train 100 tigers. (assuming your DM lets you buy tigers) So can the party Druid. How does that invalidate AC?
If training a tiger is a real option (for most of us, DM's don't have tigers available at the local market I expect), then get a tiger and train it, and use it to flank with your AC. Once your AC is smart enough (when you get to level 7), it can train tigers too.
Isn't it obvious why you take an animal companion ?
It gets better with each level, right ?
Yes, you can have that tiger, but it will stay JUST that ... a normal tiger.
Since it has animal intelligence it won't understand the FLANK idea. It will just attack it next to his "master". Or at least that's how I'd see it working out.
With an animal companion you can choose skills and feats, it can get an int of 3 so it understands (your) spoken commands, it gets evasion ... the list is pretty much a sale to me :)
To my knowledge with int 3 it understands your spoken commands. So, you can actually tell it to FLANK the enemy the rogue is fighting for instance ...
And .. if you're still not satisfied .. take the animal companion AND train that tiger too.
Correct me if I'm wrong tho ;)
-TDL
100 tigers would be great, but at three every six weeks or so, it's not really an option. All of the help for 7th, 11th, or 20th level rangers is great, but the question was what about NOW?? 4th level. The current level. Wolf tripper is the only real option, but at such a low HP, it's good for one attack, maybe two.
My real gripe is why limit the AC to the old starting list of 3.5? At least in 3.5 they could have any druid animal,(not realistically but hey). I, like a lot of players assumed the 3 level tax was enough, why screw the ranger by limiting his choices? The quote floating around is since the ranger has better combat abilities, (which is arguable) he SHOULDN'T have a good combat companion??? Also, not wanting to weaken the druid or paladin's ability or uniqueness is a joke, since we have a summoner and a cavalier now. 3.5 hurt the Ranger, and powering up the other base classes further nerfed the class for all intents and purposes.
100 tigers would be great, but at three every six weeks or so, it's not really an option. All of the help for 7th, 11th, or 20th level rangers is great, but the question was what about NOW?? 4th level. The current level. Wolf tripper is the only real option, but at such a low HP, it's good for one attack, maybe two.
My real gripe is why limit the AC to the old starting list of 3.5? At least in 3.5 they could have any druid animal,(not realistically but hey). I, like a lot of players assumed the 3 level tax was enough, why screw the ranger by limiting his choices? The quote floating around is since the ranger has better combat abilities, (which is arguable) he SHOULDN'T have a good combat companion??? Also, not wanting to weaken the druid or paladin's ability or uniqueness is a joke, since we have a summoner and a cavalier now. 3.5 hurt the Ranger, and powering up the other base classes further nerfed the class for all intents and purposes.
Perhaps we/you are focusing to much on stats and mathematics ... isn't it just great ROLEPLAYING fun to have that animal companion at your side ?
It makes for good interactions at city gates/inns/markets.
Besides this ... you are not ALWAYS in combat (I hope ;)) ... it can guard/track/find ...
There are alot of options for the animal companion then just fighting alongside.
Ofcourse that's all in my humble opinion :)
-TDL
3.5 was a major buff to the Ranger and Pathfinder gave it some actual goodies as well. Animal Companions were also similarly buffed or did you forget when it Rangers were treated as half Druid level for thier entire careers?
Both variants of the nature's bond have thier upsides, it really depends on what you'd want to do with the character. Having someone that can sneak as good as the party rogue, with a fighter's BAB, and some of the other ranger tricks? It's a very effective character in the hands of the right player.
Well .. I think I'd go for the animal companion EVERY time.
The max wisdom you will have (mostly) is 14 for the 4th level spells.
So your hunting companions will have a +1 bonus (at 4th level) for 2 rounds against 1 specific enemy. That's it ...
While the animal companion you get so much more, APART from combat like I mentioned in my previous post.
-TDL
Yes, the animal companion gets to soak a hit and die 1st or 2nd round. good luck with that 11 hp.
All of the help for 7th, 11th, or 20th level rangers is great, but the question was what about NOW?? 4th level.
The AC isn't as good at 4th level as it is at higher levels. This makes sense to me. The power of the AC should advance with level IMO.
Wolf tripper is the only real option, but at such a low HP, it's good for one attack, maybe two.
The Cheetah/Leopard is an all-round superior option to the wolf. It is also a legal pick for the Ranger. (it is listed as Cat (small) - but that's not a housecat)
My real gripe is why limit the AC to the old starting list of 3.5? At least in 3.5 they could have any druid animal,(not realistically but hey). I, like a lot of players assumed the 3 level tax was enough, why screw the ranger by limiting his choices?
Keep in mind that in 3.5 the Ranger HALVED his level for determining the abilities of his AC, so a 20th level Ranger had the same AC as a 10th level Druid.
So, basically AC has improved in Pathfinder from 3.5.
That's BEFORE looking at the other ways AC has improved from 3.5 (for both Rangers and Druids).
The quote floating around is since the ranger has better combat abilities, (which is arguable) he SHOULDN'T have a good combat companion???
Better than the Druid? Better than in 3.5?
Either way, the AC is a useful tool. It however, is not near the premeire ability of the Ranger.
Also, not wanting to weaken the druid or paladin's ability or uniqueness is a joke
I don't think (IMO) that has anything to do with why a Ranger's AC is less powerful.
3.5 hurt the Ranger
Are you from the same planet as me? Did you see the 3.0 Ranger? How did 3.5 hurt the Ranger?
...and powering up the other base classes further nerfed the class for all intents and purposes.
The Ranger got a powerup in 3.5 - more than most classes (the Bard maybe got more)
Then in Pathfinder the Ranger got another big powerup. His AC got better, his Spellcasting got better, his HP got better, his Favored Enemy bonuses got better, he got favored terrain bonuses, His combat style feats got better, He got the Quarry ability...if he was going to have a bigger AC boost - surely some other stuff here needed to go.
As a houserule, you could have the AC equivalent to the Druids and maybe use the 3.5 Ranger otherwise? Probably a terrible deal though.
Just a note,
Any creature that hunts in packs automatically and instinctually understands the concept of flanking.
A wolf pack will usually have one or two, usually the younger faster wovles, attack a larger animal from the front. Not to actually do damage, just to distract it. Then the bigger stronger wolves will come up from behind and attack the hamstrings. Once they do that, they harry back and forth, chase it along, inflict wounds here and there as they can, tearing wounds to let it bleed out.
A lion pride works much the same, two or three make themselves visible and distract the prey while the others sneak up from downwind and attack the distracted prey.
Now, a bear probably wouldn't understand flanking, it would just wade in and smash things. Same with a wolverine or eagle.
Again, I see most people focus on the combat use of the animal companion ... and not on ANY other use ...
I believe pathfinder is still also a roleplaying game and not only hack&slash.
-TDL
Again, I see most people focus on the combat use of the animal companion ... and not on ANY other use ...
I believe pathfinder is still also a roleplaying game and not only hack&slash.
-TDL
That is normally their primary role. Scent and flight among other things are just add-ons.
Again, I see most people focus on the combat use of the animal companion ... and not on ANY other use ...
I believe pathfinder is still also a roleplaying game and not only hack&slash.
-TDL
That is normally their primary role. Scent and flight among other things are just add-ons.
Actuall, I think the reason it comes back to combat is because...
...that is where min/maxing breaks the system. Min/Maxers don't break the roleplaying (usually), they don't break the story, they break combat. So most discussions about a class come down to 'is it breakable' regarding combat.
I don't think I've seen a class or feat that could break the roleplay side, just stuff that broke the combat.
How is a Cheetah better than a wolf for a 4th level ranger? It is small sized, so it's CMB is trashed. Again, why is the ranger limited to so few companions?? What is the justification for nerfing the companion list?? If the companion is only a small part of the ranger what is the major part? A dex fighter beats the crap out of a ranger in combat, the pally has much better magic AND animals. Yeah, we should limit the ranger to a 16 FREAKING HD ANIMAL THAT DOES 1D6 DAMAGE! Stay back, or my pony will kick you for 1d3 a half dozen times. If I want something to RP, I will poop in my hat and call it Ted, THAT will cause problems at the city gate.
Just admit that limiting the list is a nerf and I will walk away. I would still like to know why Jason and crew thought this was necessary. Last play testing reports I read had most in favor of a flat 2 or 3 level penalty. Even at no penalty a druid AC will still take out a ranger AC because of spell pumps. The easy way to tell the Ranger and the druid's companions apart is the giant sized, stoneskined, glowing teeth and clawed, cheetah is the druids, the dead one is the Rangers.
Just admit that limiting the list is a nerf and I will walk away. I would still like to know why Jason and crew thought this was necessary. Last play testing reports I read had most in favor of a flat 2 or 3 level penalty.
Would that be like... the flat 3 level penalty the Ranger AC uses? Or something different?
So let's look at that nerf:
The second option is to form a close bond with an animal companion. A ranger who selects an animal companion can choose from the following list: badger, bird, camel, cat (small), dire rat, dog, horse, pony, snake (viper or constrictor), or wolf. If the campaign takes place wholly or partly in an aquatic environment, the ranger may choose a shark instead. (...) A ranger's animal companion shares his favored enemy and favored terrain bonuses. This ability functions like the druid animal companion ability (which is part of the Nature Bond class feature), except that the ranger's effective druid level is equal to his ranger level – 3.
At 4th level, a ranger gains an animal companion selected from the following list: badger, camel, dire rat, dog, riding dog, eagle, hawk, horse (light or heavy), owl, pony, snake (Small or Medium viper), or wolf. If the campaign takes place wholly or partly in an aquatic environment, the following creatures may be added to the ranger’s list of options: manta ray, porpoise, Medium shark, and squid. (...) This ability functions like the druid ability of the same name, except that the ranger’s effective druid level is one-half his ranger level.
Wow. No porpoise or manta ray. There must be true malevolence behind this 'nerf'.
(The quoted sections detail the specific rules for Ranger ACs. All ACs were buffed in PRPG)How is a Cheetah better than a wolf for a 4th level ranger? It is small sized, so it's CMB is trashed.
Sure, why don't we compare CMB of Wolf/Cheetah, say, at Effective Druid Level 7/ 10th Ranger?
The Cheetah will obviously have Weapon Finesse (which applies to attack-equivalent Maneuvers like Trip) given it's DEX focus, and I'm giving it the alternate advancement (+2 DEX & CON) since the Medium Advancement doesn't result in a better CMB (it would do somewhat more damage, but that's obviously not the focus). Both will have Imp Trip and Weapon Focus: Bite (the Cheetah will forgo Imp Trip at 1st level since it needs Wpn Finesse, and the Wolf will forgo Wpn Focus since Combat Exp is needed for Imp Trip). We will put both companions' discretionary +1 Stat Bump into INT for better tactical usage, making it irrelevant for this comparison:
Wolf: 13 STR (Base) + 8 (Advance Adj) + 2 (Str+Dex Adj @7th) = 23 STR (+6) +1 (Advance Large Size Adj) + 4 BAB + 2 Imp Trip +1 Wpn Focus = +14 Trip CMB.
Cheetah: 21 DEX (Base) + 2 (Alt. Advance Adj) +2 (Str+Dex Adj @7th) = 25 DEX (+7) -1 (Small Size Adj) +4 BAB +2 Imp Trip +1 Wpn Focus = +13 Trip CMB. (+12 for Claw Trips)
At first level that would look like:
Wolf: 13 STR (Base) = (+1) +1 BAB +2 Imp Trip = +4 Trip CMB.
Cheetah: 21 DEX (Base) = (+5) -1 (Small Size Adj) +1 BAB +1 Wpn Focus = +6 Trip CMB. (+5 for Claw Trips)
So the Cheetah wins on a 1:1 CMB comparison at low levels, and only falls marginally behind when the Wolf advances to Large. That isn't accounting for the HUGE advantage the Cheetah has with it's 2 extra Claw attacks, allowing 3 Trip attacks as a Full Attack, which would seem to more than counter a +/-1 CMB difference (not even counting being able to Trip multiple opponents). Funny how "trashed" the Cheetah's CMB ended up after PRPG's change to Size Modifiers...
(The Tiger actually seems quite a good Tripper choice once it gains Pounce at 7th Effective Druid Level (and taking Combat Expertise & Improved Trip as Feats) even ignoring the Grab and Rake it gains...)
I would still like to know why Jason and crew thought this was necessary. Last play testing reports I read had most in favor of a flat 2 or 3 level penalty. Even at no penalty a druid AC will still take out a ranger AC because of spell pumps. The easy way to tell the Ranger and the druid's companions apart is the giant sized, stoneskined, glowing teeth and clawed, cheetah is the druids, the dead one is the Rangers.
Has something changed to make all the hordes in favor of a 2 or 3 level penalty during the playtest no longer be happy with a 3 level penalty in the final product? If you REALLY REALLY want your Druids to have a Druid AC, then use that in your game. That isn't consistent with the heritage distinction of Ranger/Druid AC's, and as far as I can tell everybody at Paizo and most everybody on these boards feel that the Ranger doesn't need as poweful an AC as the Druid. This is the game that is in print, and talking about your "poop in a hat" probably isn't going to change that or make a good name for yourself around here. FYI.
I think there's been plenty of advice shared here, as well as what Treant made available in his guide, enough for any Ranger player who might wonder how to best make use of the new PRPG class. And if they still have doubts, or are just grouchy it's not a full Druid AC... THERE'S ALWAYS THE SECOND HUNTER'S BOND OPTION (which Druids don't get).
If I want something to RP, I will poop in my hat and call it Ted, THAT will cause problems at the city gate.
Thanks! I now have my next character concept! Summoner with an Eidolon named Ted.
The easy way to tell the Ranger and the druid's companions apart is the giant sized, stoneskined, glowing teeth and clawed, cheetah is the druids, the dead one is the Rangers.
LMAO! So true it's funny.
I need some better crack or something. I had a -4 for small stuck in my head for the Cheetah's CMB mod, not -1. Unfortunately no cheetahs for our ranger, or wolves for that matter.
Still there is no logical reason in my mind for the nerf to the ranger LIST. I think it was an editing mistake, and the "man" is covering it up! James Jacobs is the name attached to the quotes about limiting the list AND he is the editor in chief? Hmmm....
I miss animal friendship. :(
3.0 Ranger, 4th lvl Ranger has 4 hd AC, 10th lvl Ranger has 10 hd AC, 20th lvl Ranger has 20 hd AC. Available animals, any.
3.5 around 45 animal choices, 20th lvl ranger has an AC with 8 - 11 hd.
PRPG 11 animal choices, 14 HD at 20th
So in my world, 3.0 to 3.5 was a nerf to the Ranger's AC.
And going from 45 choices to 11, is also a nerf, regardless of how awesome it is to have a 14 HD Kung-Fu Ninja badger.
If it makes you feel any better, I suspect there's decent chances the APG will reveal some options for Animal Companions. Either as Alt Class Features (giving up spellcasting for full Druid Companion?) or Feats (expanding list to full Druid list, or even new types, e.g. Fey/Plants / bonus to effective Druid level up to Char Level/ etc). Those sort of options I feel WOULD be within Paizo's conception for the class, because you are giving up something to gain them (Class Features/ Feats).
Another thing you might consider is dipping a couple levels in Druid, which opens up the full Companion list and gives you better spell access to buff your critter. With Ranger Casting (and doubling up on bonus spells from WIS) you'll have plenty of moderate level buffs to throw around. There may be options like this in the APG, but most of the Unearthed Arcana "Alternate Class Features" for Ranger/Druid should work just fine with PRPG classes.
I had suggested a level of druid, but I am not sure the DM will allow it. We were transported to some prehistoric sanctuary the gods set up to remember/honor the old ways or first era or something like that. It would be a perfect place for a nature oriented character to "see the (green!) light" and convert fully to druidism, but who knows.
I am a halfling fighter/thief mounted combat guy, and I am having a great time. The rest of the party not so much.
As for the APG, I am thinking the same as you, and can see them doing something like that. I just hope it doesn't get too out of control, like the land of splat books era of 3.5. Pathfinder has a good set up, they can offer fluffy/crunchy stuff in the adventure paths and society play, but could keep the core game more focused. We will see what happens though.
|
Also, two questions.1. Do horse automatically have some form of armor proficiency? Because I feel like in my game we've never made some sort of special armor proficiency requirement for barded horses. Are we doing it wrong, or are animal companions "extra-penalized" and need to take armor proficiency to wear barding.
2. Can a medium sized character ride a medium sized mount? I'd like to have my AC pull double-duty as a mount. I'd like a cheetah, but not if you can't ride one. Does a mount need to be large?
1 : Not that I know of. Any barded horse will have the usual penalties for not having the armor proficiency.
2 : No. Your mount has to be at least one size larger than you are.