After finding out that the Ranger companion list is fixed to just the first level animals from 3.5, I am so sad. I just can't figure out why Jason and his guys did this. It totally ruins any kind of underground/underdark ranger, as well as a half dozen other builds. It just seems totally weird expanding and improving the Druid's companions, and then totally nerfing the Ranger's.
If the progression from 3.0 to now holds, the next Ranger list will only have 2 or 3 choices. I am going to guess horse, pony and dire rat. :(
|
After finding out that the Ranger companion list is fixed to just the first level animals from 3.5, I am so sad. I just can't figure out why Jason and his guys did this. It totally ruins any kind of underground/underdark ranger, as well as a half dozen other builds. It just seems totally weird expanding and improving the Druid's companions, and then totally nerfing the Ranger's.
If the progression from 3.0 to now holds, the next Ranger list will only have 2 or 3 choices. I am going to guess horse, pony and dire rat. :(
Ranger will most likely be getting companions that mention they are able to be taken by rangers in the future, I think (I seem to remember someone saying that?)
|
wait, what? I thought rangers got the same list as druids. I think I missed something.
You did(but so did I).
Hunter's Bond states that a ranger can choose from the following list: badger, bird, camel, cat(small), dire rat, dog, horse, pony, snake(viper or constricter), and wolf. Sharks are allowed in aquatic/semi-aquatic games.
I think a lot of people did, but that is not the case. They are limited to those listed in the Core Rule Book under the Ranger entry. As Dragonborn3 says.
However ... the list in Bestiary says the selection in there is for the Druid AND the Ranger.
So I don't know why in the Core rules it has a smaller list .. but the complete list in the Bestiary is usable to both ...
-TDL
No, the list in the Bestiary is optional only with DM aproval. Not for Society play or per standard rules.
Geez, one of our players just pointed out that a cleric with animal domain gets a better companion than the ranger too. How weak is this?? Can't believe Jason Bulmahn and the rest of the Pathfinder guys meant for this. I would really like to know why this is. Cleric gets a bear or tiger, ranger gets badger or bobcat. Just so wrong.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason rangers get a smaller core list is because they're already good at fighting. They, in theory, don't NEED a bad-ass animal companion to fight for them; a ranger's companion is more akin to a mount or a messenger or a scout than a combat buddy. As a result, the additional animal companions in the Bestiary are not part of the ranger core list.
But it's a pretty easy house rule to say that rangers can get any animal companion they want. Just check with your GM!
(Personally... I think that rangers SHOULD get the full range of choice for animal companion; they're already not as good as an equal-level druid anyway when it comes to this ability, so I personally don't see a problem with letting rangers pick any animal they want.)
Our Ranger is looking at suicide by dinosaur at this point so she can switch classes. She took ranged style and after being stranded on a Dino island, has her choice of a snake, snake or snake. No tripper or blocker options, and no mounts.
I appreciate your reply James, but was shocked at how tight the list was. My last Ranger was 3.0, so he had any animal he wanted at an equal HD as himself with Animal Friendship. I never liked the 3.5 companion changes to ranger, so I never payed one. It's so ironic that in a land of awesome Druid or Cleric companions, our ranger is totally screwed. With the limited list, why is the ranger still assessed a -3 to level? This really seems like a fix to a nonexistent problem. In my soon to start campaign I am Gming, I will likely house rule companion as a true summoning spell like familiar, so at least they get the full list in any setting. That should keep the class as is, but not handicap it due to theme.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I volunteer to kill the Ranger for you, as I need a few more xp to level up. But not the animal companion. I like animals. I would, however, be willing to eat the animal, if someone else killed it. I would also not be adverse to someone else eating the ranger after I killed him/her. That seems like a fair trade.
Hope this helps.
MrJake
Dude if you got a player thats is planning to kill off the character over this, you got more issues then this.
Ranger will most likely be getting companions that mention they are able to be taken by rangers in the future, I think (I seem to remember someone saying that?)
Is this true? Any more details? Will we see any of this in the APG itself?
It was a concept thing for her I believe. Our GM took the no bad-ass companion thing to heart. He allowed a couple of other choices, but nothing to fit the concept she had.
On a side note, our bard wants to die too, but that's because he wants to play an alchemist! It is his dream class.
I'm not sure what the RAW on this is, but given the Companion features stack from different Class Levels, it seems possible that taking 1 level of Druid would open up the whole list... Or it's also possible a Druid12/Ranger2 would be restricted to the Ranger list (which would suck a$$).
If the not completely-suck interpretation were given official approval, this would open a path for Ranger character concepts with an 'advanced' Companion, with the 'cost' of delaying Ranger progression for 1 level of Druid. James?
Again, I would be happy to kill both of them for you. But not the animal companion. Doing so would violate my alignment.
I can see wanting the druid to have a better companion, but does the CLERIC really need a better companion than the ranger to balance out play?? In the play test I thought the -3 was the solution to the 3.5 hosing that the ranger got to his animals.
The discussion that led to this must have been directly after a marathon drinking session with lots of keg stands.
"You know, I need a cleric for a group of nomad sheep herders, What do you think?"
"Take Animal and Travel, and then you can have a tiger as a companion, or a dire bear!"
"But the rangers only get cheetahs."
"You calling me a cheater! Shut up! I will kick your ass!"
"Hey guys, calm down. We need to carry Mona outside, I think he peed his pants again."
|
I can see wanting the druid to have a better companion, but does the CLERIC really need a better companion than the ranger to balance out play?? In the play test I thought the -3 was the solution to the 3.5 hosing that the ranger got to his animals.
I agree 100% that the ranger should have the same full animal list and reccomend that house rule for everyone. I also don't see the need for the Druid level -3 rule. There is no reason for the ranger's animal companion to be less powerful than the druid's. In fact, in my The Spell-less Ranger in the current issue of Kobold Quarterly (www.KoboldQuarterly.com) I removed the -3 ... the spell-less ranger gets his animal companion at his full druid level.
Other than these issues with animal companions, I think the Pathfinder ranger is a very well done class.
Our Ranger is looking at suicide by dinosaur at this point so she can switch classes. She took ranged style and after being stranded on a Dino island, has her choice of a snake, snake or snake. No tripper or blocker options, and no mounts.
I appreciate your reply James, but was shocked at how tight the list was. My last Ranger was 3.0, so he had any animal he wanted at an equal HD as himself with Animal Friendship. I never liked the 3.5 companion changes to ranger, so I never payed one. It's so ironic that in a land of awesome Druid or Cleric companions, our ranger is totally screwed. With the limited list, why is the ranger still assessed a -3 to level? This really seems like a fix to a nonexistent problem. In my soon to start campaign I am Gming, I will likely house rule companion as a true summoning spell like familiar, so at least they get the full list in any setting. That should keep the class as is, but not handicap it due to theme.
Dinosaur Island?? Time to max out Animal Handling with skill focus and catch a velociraptor to tame!
That just sounds cool.
Now my rogue gunsmith wants one.
If a cowboy riding an ostrich is a misfit toy, what does that make a cowboy riding a velociraptor?
My halfling fighter did!! and it's cool.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again... it's a good rule to house rule. Letting rangers pick any animal companion just like a druid (but with the penalty to their effective druid level) is a good thing, I think. ESPECIALLY if that's enough of a deal-breaker that a player's looking to kill off their character.So um.
If you're suggesting that there's little game impact to allowing rangers to have all animals, and that GMs should go ahead and house rule it, why in God's name does the PF core book not allow rangers to take all animals?
That's just ridiculous. "It's not badly designed because you can just house rule it!"
What I'm suggesting is that if you don't like a rule, change it. Personally, I don't like the rule for limiting ranger animal companions, and I talked about it with Jason during the design process but he was unswayed by my argument and did not change the rule. And since he's the lead designer, I respected his decision to not adjust the rule.
Thanks for replying James. What about a ranger taking a level of druid like Quandary asked? Will this open the whole list or are Rangers still limited, and would she then be limited to the druid only weapons list then? Is that still a rule??
From all I have seen and read on the boards, it really seems like this restriction isn't very well know. If I were Gming, I would have never even thought that the list was set, just left over text from 3.5.
Yes, I'd be interested as to what the official RAW is on this subject:
it seems possible that taking 1 level of Druid would open up the whole list...
Or it's also possible a Druid12/Ranger2 would be restricted to the Ranger list (which would suck a$$).
(That technically isn't the best example because Ranger2 doesn't have an AC, but you get the idea)
The only other possible interpretation I could see for this issue would be to allow 2 separate AC's, but that sort of precedent would have big implications... say, for Familiars of a Wiz/Sorc. The reading that says the restricted Ranger list "imposes" it's restriction on the "combined" AC of a mostly Druid/ Ranger4 would make such a multi-class practically RUINOUS with regards to the AC, obviously.The other possiblity (Druid level giving full access) would be a great 'solution' for people with issues w/ Ranger AC, but I'd like to know if it IS 'official' per RAW or not. I got the impression there was going to be some clarifications on the restricted Ranger AC (and possibly extending it to Paladins) in the next Errate/Printing, so if this option (1 Druid level opening list) IS legit and available, it'd be nice if it were made somewhat more obvious as well.
Ranger will most likely be getting companions that mention they are able to be taken by rangers in the future, I think (I seem to remember someone saying that?)
WILL we be seeing future "Ranger Companions", or even guidelines as to what ACs would qualify for the Ranger list?
I think it's important to point out that the Ranger does have some decent options on their list.
The Cheetah/Leopard option is actually potentially the best choice for Druids from levels 1-6 (Almost definitely the best for levels 4-6), and it is available for Rangers as well.
Of course, limiting a list is a nerf, even if you leave some good options on it.
Just pointing out that the Ranger list isn't a bad list for the size.
As for the OP's situation - if 90% of the options on the list are non-options because of the specifics of the campaign - it's time for the DM to step in definitely.
But it's a pretty easy house rule to say that rangers can get any animal companion they want. Just check with your GM!
Just as an observation, not a criticism; it seems that many people who game in a newer style are more apprehensive about houseruling, possibly because of the sheer abundance of rules presented in newer games.
I am not an edition war person, I run Swords & Wizardry, Mutant Future, Labyrinth Lord and Pathfinder. Sure I favor oldschool, but we also all enjoy Pathfinder. Being from an older tradition, with less options, houserules and add-ons were natural. Post 3.0, with the abundance of rules, it seems that people have a tendency to not want to break these rules as much.As long as your GM approves, go for it. What does it hurt to ask the GM and work with them? We aren't your adversaries, we just get the adventure rolling and present the scenery and the (un)usual suspects.
I don't have a problem with house ruling things, the problem is our DM has decided that as written the rules support only a VERY limited number and range of companions for the Ranger, and the only ones available must be mounts or scouts. This is Jason Bulmahn's view as well it seems, so no house rule is needed. I agree with our ranger that it really is a build killer having so few choices, and makes the ranger less desirable to play. She played mostly 3.0, and not much 3.5 and companions were a big part of the concept for her and me for that matter. It is a shame that the design team decided the ranger needed nerfed, and I really don't understand why. It is such an arbitrary list, and if it did not match the 3.5 starting list I would REALLY question its origin.
Further, it has been asked several times how a dip in druid would affect a Ranger, and still no official word. This is a clear restriction, so at this point I would say that no, a dip in druid will not open the list, just restrict armor choices. We are near leveling again, so an answer is needed asap. I will post a question in the rules section and hope for the best.
If you are a druid then you should get the druid's companions. As far as ranger and druid levels stacking by RAW I would post this question in the rules section to see if Jason decides to answer that since its an important question. I always thought they did, but I could not find proof.
I really can't wait for the APG!
What about the Ranger dipping a level of Druid? I know the levels stack, but does the list open up? Remember a life is at stake here!!
(Shameless halfling Feat pitch)
Mounted Stealth!! Or rules for it maybe??
I really can't wait for the APG!
What about the Ranger dipping a level of Druid? I know the levels stack, but does the list open up? Remember a life is at stake here!!
(Shameless halfling Feat pitch)
Mounted Stealth!! Or rules for it maybe??
The only qualifier for the druid list is to be a druid. The order the classes are taken in has no affect on whether or not an ability is gained. If you had taken a level of druid first and a level of ranger second it would not make your tiger, assuming you had one, leave you.
It wouldn't be much of a feat on its own. It'd be reasonable if it came with some buyback of the progression, I'd imagine.If you have a GM who's wary about house rules... how about a feat that lets you pick an animal companion as if you were a druid?
Hmm... actually sounds like a not-bad idea for a certain book we might be publishing come Gen Con 2010...
Agreed. No offense to Mr. Jacobs, but one of the things that really started to annoy me about 3.5 was the fact that almost every good idea seemed to be accompanied by, "make it a feat!" Even with the additional feat progression in PF, they're still precious. One of the nice things about skill tricks, for example, was that you could actually do something interesting without investing a feat in it. Altho, one or two of them were poorly thought out. Concealed spell casting, I'm looking at you.
The only qualifier for the druid list is to be a druid. The order the classes are taken in has no affect on whether or not an ability is gained. If you had taken a level of druid first and a level of ranger second it would not make your tiger, assuming you had one, leave you.
I would agree with you, except it will play out like this at the table.
"Book says Ranger can only choose from that list, and the game designers have confirmed this, so it's a restriction. Just like Druid can't wear metal armor. Neither restriction goes away when multi-classing. So here is your snake."
Short of an official ruling, this is to great of a risk.
I would hope that using a feat would get you EXACTLY the same companion options as well as level. Otherwise it is a bit weak.
Well, we leveled. Still no official ruling on Druid / Ranger multi list. I guess I will post in rules forum.
No it would not... but for the effects of it's advancement since a Ranger can't take that animal, it would only be counted as a 1st level druid.
That will likely be the interpretation of our DM. If the animal isn't on BOTH lists, then they won't stack. If so, the player may just quit. This is such a silly nerf, and I hope it causes lots of society play issues and gets fixed. Although I am opposed to a feat tax, if a new feat were added that took away the -3 and opened the list it would be okay.
That will likely be the interpretation of our DM. If the animal isn't on BOTH lists, then they won't stack. If so, the player may just quit. This is such a silly nerf, and I hope it causes lots of society play issues and gets fixed. Although I am opposed to a feat tax, if a new feat were added that took away the -3 and opened the list it would be okay.
I see two silly things happening here:
1) your DM using an environment where the Ranger only gets one animal companion choice and not houseruling to make the choice a viable option.
2) A player ready to quit because a minor ability of a class isn't gaining full potential in a specific campaign.
In most campaigns the Nerf really isn't much of a nerf at all. This is a specific situation created by your DM - the players should either choose classes that fit in the campaign OR the DM should houserule to ensure all classes are viable.
I see two silly things happening here:
1) your DM using an environment where the Ranger only gets one animal companion choice and not houseruling to make the choice a viable option.
2) A player ready to quit because a minor ability of a class isn't gaining full potential in a specific campaign.
In most campaigns the Nerf really isn't much of a nerf at all. This is a specific situation created by your DM - the players should either choose classes that fit in the campaign OR the DM should houserule to ensure all classes are viable.
+1
|
|
No it would not... but for the effects of it's advancement since a Ranger can't take that animal, it would only be counted as a 1st level druid.That will likely be the interpretation of our DM. If the animal isn't on BOTH lists, then they won't stack. If so, the player may just quit. This is such a silly nerf, and I hope it causes lots of society play issues and gets fixed. Although I am opposed to a feat tax, if a new feat were added that took away the -3 and opened the list it would be okay.
I think I'm a little confused as to the root of this question ...
Is this a Pathfinder Society organized play game you guys are in? If so, have you checked the Pathfinder Society FAQ? This is the kind of thing that tends to be covered here. Also, if so, you should post your question in THAT forum - Josh and co. are very good about answering organized play questions.
If this is NOT a Pathfinder Society organized play game you guys are in and is instead a home campaign, then why is the DM so unwilling to just make a ruling that everyone can live with and have fun with? Is he or she a new DM or maybe just hung up on playing strictly by the "Letter of the Law" so to speak. We already have had James state that he personally sees no problem with house ruling that the list be opened up for the ranger and many on this thread have agreed. Why exactly is your DM so adamant NOT to allow it?
I recently had a similar conversation with my DM. He thought about it for a couple minutes, said he tended to agree and didn't see any balance issues and we moved on. No big deal. It sounds to me like your DM (and, let's be fair - the player as well) is making a pretty huge thing out of a fairly minor issue. There just seems like there is more to this that we are not seeing - has this turned more into some kind of power struggle / battle of wills or something?
Maybe you should show them both this thread and get their comments ...
The reason rangers get a smaller core list is because they're already good at fighting.
As opposed to being good at fighting, casting spells, and having an animal companion like the druid...
I appreciate your reply James, but was shocked at how tight the list was. My last Ranger was 3.0, so he had any animal he wanted at an equal HD as himself with Animal Friendship. I never liked the 3.5 companion changes to ranger, so I never played one. It's so ironic that in a land of awesome Druid or Cleric companions, our ranger is totally screwed. With the limited list, why is the ranger still assessed a -3 to level? This really seems like a fix to a nonexistent problem.
Again... it's a good rule to house rule. Letting rangers pick any animal companion just like a druid (but with the penalty to their effective druid level) is a good thing, I think.
I played a true ranger in Living Greyhawk, thru to 12th level. Animal companions for Rangers were as a Druid = 1/2 Ranger level. I took a feat to boost it by three. At higher levels, it still wasn't enough to make my companion anything but flavor/role play.
PFS changed the rules to Ranger level -3. I believe there is also a feat that adds 3 so with the feat the Ranger is on par with the Druid. As much as I like an expanded list for the Ranger (and I think it's perfectly valid outside of PF society) a Ranger's animal companion could out shine a Druids and that's just not right. If your party doesn't have a Druid, I see no problem with the Ranger having a better companion.
FWIW: I had an Elven Hound. It was fun (and optimized), and except of one fight after I got it (8th level), it was pure flavor. I got to use it's super fast chase speed once.
-Swiftbrook
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason rangers get a smaller core list is because they're already good at fighting.As opposed to being good at fighting, casting spells, and having an animal companion like the druid...
I DID say that I preferred rangers to have full animal companion rules. You're preaching to the choir here.
The reason rangers get a smaller core list is because they're already good at fighting.As opposed to being good at fighting, casting spells, and having an animal companion like the druid...
This argument could just as easily be applied to "Why don't Rangers get full spell progression like a Druid?"
Overall, I agree, Druids are more powerful than Rangers. However - why does that mean that Animal Companion is the Ranger ability that needs a boost?
The Ranger Animal Companion ability did get a boost from 3.5, but it's always been inferior to the Druid animal companion ability, so it's not like Pathfinder increased the gap - in fact, it was reduced.
If the issue is really a BALANCE issue, and the suggestion is that Rangers need to be more powerful - then I would think that it would make more sense to advance their power in a way that would keep them unique - not give them abilities identical to other classes.