It really isn't a balance issue as far as power, the new system can let you make a powerful companion, but it is so limiting choice wise some environments and concepts are out of reach now. No flying archer, no subterranean builds, no prehistoric dino warriors!
Also, I really fail to see why a Ranger can use handle animal to train any animal, but he can only have a "best friend" who is a mount or scout.
And even though the 3.5 to PF was a boost, it's still not as good as 3.0 IMHO. Any animal at same HD as Ranger.
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.
Well if anything, there needs to be an option to NOT have spellcasting or animal companions. 3.5 had some between all the supplements but they were all almost as weak as the casting and companion (sadly). But the argument that "the Ranger is already a good fighter so doesn't need an animal companion" compared to the Druid is so horridly flawed it is almost comical and I'm surprised people keep saying it.
Well if anything, there needs to be an option to NOT have spellcasting or animal companions.
There is an option to not have animal companions for both Druids and Rangers. The Ranger one, like their animal companion, isn't so hot. The Druid one, like their animal companion, is pretty good.
As for non-spellcasting options, I agree that would be a good idea (for Rangers and Paladins) - I wouldn't be surprised to see it in the APG. Guess we'll see.
But the argument that "the Ranger is already a good fighter so doesn't need an animal companion" compared to the Druid is so horridly flawed it is almost comical and I'm surprised people keep saying it.
Someone said that? In that case, I would agree with you on that point.
Any word on if the most restrictive lists apply to AC stacking, or if it is the least restrictive?
No, but I was holding out hope it would get answered here. If I start a rules thread question, I bet the first 50 responses will be explaining that the ranger list IS limited, and then arguing about whether or not it is a true restriction to the class. I guess I will bite the bullet and post a second thread.
Creative Director
|
Honestly, it's not as much a balance issue as a flavor issue, I think. A tough big combat machine animal companion is a better match to a class that is a spellcaster and will be doing things other than fighting, since that gives that class more options and breadth. A combat machine given to a class whose purpose to be a combat machine is not as good at providing options, but skewing it so that it gives a combat machine scouting options is.
Not everything is always about making sure equations equal zero when it comes to balancing clases. Sometime, balance needs to be addressed in flavor and options.
AGAIN: I prefer rangers with full animal companion options (that's what Tarzan was, in any event, and it's unfortunate that it's hard to make a Tarzain in the core rules), as I've said numerous times. In my home games, that's how it works. There's NOTHING WRONG with anyone else doing the same thing in their home games.
|
Cartigan wrote:
Well if anything, there needs to be an option to NOT have spellcasting or animal companions. 3.5 had some between all the supplements but they were all almost as weak as the casting and companion (sadly). But the argument that "the Ranger is already a good fighter so doesn't need an animal companion" compared to the Druid is so horridly flawed it is almost comical and I'm surprised people keep saying it.
Um ... have you checked out the latest issue of Kobold Quarterly? There is a Pathfinder ranger variant that does not cast spells AND gets his animal companion at his full level (instead of level -3)
Just wanted to point that out ... I know the guy that wrote the article :)
ADVANCED PLAYER'S GUIDE
BEAST MASTER
This archetype allows a ranger to choose any animal at all. Plus at level (12 is it?) he replaces camoflauge with gaining +3 to his animal companion level- so like a druid, a level 20 ranger will have a level 20 companion
Hope that was helpful
Honestly, it's not as much a balance issue as a flavor issue, I think. A tough big combat machine animal companion is a better match to a class that is a spellcaster and will be doing things other than fighting, since that gives that class more options and breadth. A combat machine given to a class whose purpose to be a combat machine is not as good at providing options, but skewing it so that it gives a combat machine scouting options is.
I don't know, to me it makes more sense that the ranger is the one with the loyal pet, while the druid as a priest of nature can simply call on whatever animals or mystical creatures s/he wants - which they can already do via the spontaneous casting of SNA. The companion is already part of the ranger's schtick, like how the mount/blade is for the paladin - one of their iconic abilities, but not the only one. I'm not sure there's any problem with a combat class receiving a combat-oriented feature, imo it can work out fairly well.
Did the druid actually have animal companions before 3rd edition, like the ranger did? I'd be interested if we could differentiate between the two by making the druid leave the pet to the ranger, and instead have his animal summons be better.
|
|
Personally I have always thought that the ranger companion list was both to large and to small. For me a ranger is a highly trained professional like the fighter. Wither the training comes from another ranger or in the military, they have mastered the skills so well that them look magical. In the city they are the detective, in the army the scoot or sniper, in the desert the guide and of course in the woods the hunter. With favored terrain, favored enemy and skills all over the place they can be just about anything.
The companions should reflect this. These would be animals that can be trained and loyal. The faithful dog, hunter cat, the experienced mount and the watchful bird. The snake is both not trainable nor faithful and does anyone trust a shark. So, if you look at the list as a faithful loyal "companion" then the restrictions makes since. Should it include dinosaurs, sure if the campaign is on dino island. How about a lizard? Absolutely, if it is a dwarf or drow. I think that when they made the list what they wanted was a list of animals which would make sense in the out-in-the-open environment and would not be surprising standing at the side of a character. My ranger is a gnome with a riding dog who became his companion. (The feat you are looking for is the Boon Companion - +3 to companion level.) For me that was the natural progression from riding dog to loyal companion. However, I really do think that Paizo needs to do a Companion book to answer some of these questions and provide a more expansive list.
Right. For example, it`s said that southern Garund has a bunch of dinosaurs and the cultures there use them as mounts, etc. It wouldn`t be surprising if in an AP set there, or Campaign Setting material detailing that area, that stats were given for a Ranger-appropriate Animal Companion Dinosaur, that fit the `Ranger Companion` mold. (I`m thinking a Wolf/Dog-like Dinosaur, or flying Falcon-equivalent Dinosaur, i.e. not T-Rex apex predator type)
As mentioned, Rangers can now get full Companion access if they want to, but for those that don`t, I wouldn`t be surprised if the list is minorly expanded when appropriate (as per above example/hypothetical case).
WHO DARES TO DISTURB MY ONE AND HALF YEAR SLUMBER!?
|
It should be noted that this thread was necroed from 2009. As DeathMetal4tw mentioned, the APG's Beastmaster archetype solves the issue of the thread.
As for older versions of D&D, in AD&D druids did not have an animal companion, though the rest of the class is actually very similar to what exists in Pathfinder, such as Wildshape, moving through undergrowth, being able to communicate with animals, spells, etc.
I'm not certain what it was like in 2nd edition, though I suspect the core Druid, sans kits and other splat books of the time, was still without an animal companion.
for pfs, the heartbreak is that the ranger is restricted to such a small list of animals.
Beastmaster is one way to get around this, but you lose your 6th level comat style feat. Its just an extra hindrance vs. animal companions. someone in PFS has it out for pets.
|
|
They sort of did. They could befriend up to 2xtheir HD of animals using the animal friendship spell. No mechanical boots to the critter but they could spread the HD over as many animals as they chose.As for older versions of D&D, in AD&D druids did not have an animal companion,
did they have Awaken back then too?
druids could get a treant to protect their home and awakened animals to serve with them if they're nice and feed them and change their litter
Did the druid actually have animal companions before 3rd edition, like the ranger did? I'd be interested if we could differentiate between the two by making the druid leave the pet to the ranger, and instead have his animal summons be better.
Yup. I've been playing druids with animal friends since 2e. The spell was animal friendship.
One of the cheesiest things in 3.0 was casting the spell as a rogue through use magic device and picking up the druids class feature for a cheap scroll. In 3.5 it was made a class feature to avoid this.
|
|
Just wanted to throw this out there ...
I have an article in the latest issue of Kobold Quarterly called Beast Masters that I think many of you might like.
Check it out >>>Kobold Quarterly 18