The animal companion is a class feature. Yes the player gets to take actions with it but i dont consider it another character. I also dont think they are overpowered, since generally they are more vulnerable then a full character especially in the ranger's case. I have often seen animal companions held back from dangerous combats for fear of their dieing.
I definately see players using feats and skills the animal companion has to do more. That is the point, its a class feature, using it to make you more versatile makes rather alot of sense. I dont see it as a crutch, but as making use of what you get. Wizards use their spells, fighters use feats, druids use thier wildshape and their companions.
I also dont find it silly for animals to talk. There are lots of examples of it in fantasy. In the lord of the rings series, most animals from birds to bugs could talk, not always in common though. Aslan in the narnia series certainly could talk. Heck in a game where one guy can sing his way to making his allies fight better, another can warp time and space with mighty arcane might, and another can shoot like 10 arrows in 6 seconds, no, the talking wolf is not silly to me.
Your gonna hate the summoner then....
LOL. Never a truer word spoken.
|
You can't have an animal with an Int of 3 or higher, as per the PRD. As far as I understand it, they stop being animals and change to the Magical Beast type if they do, or at least that's how the Awaken spell works.
So what happens when an animal gains a 3+ Int? Can players just not put ability points into Int for their animal companion? I have a player with a smart stegesaurus. Is this wrong? I personally have no problem with it, but I would like to know the ruling.
My opinion is that animal companions should be sort of like NPC party members, run by the GM. Druids can teach their companions tricks, but other than that, and the rules for Handle Animal, the animal would act naturally.
I think that's why druids get a bonus on Handle Animal checks made with their animal companion.
Getting an animal companion is something that a druid or ranger does. To complain about that is like complaining about the ability of clerics to destroy undead, or complaining about wizards and their ability to cast spells, or complaining about fighters and their ability to take and dish out massive amounts of damage.
Consider it this way, if my PC had taken a level of Cleric instead of Druid, she'd be able to spontaneously cast healing spells, rather than having to reserve them from her prepared spell list. She would have two domain powers, and could do things like unleash lightning on her enemies, imbue enemies with chaos, daze living creatures by touching them, gain the ability of freedom of movement, grant luck to allies, lay down blast runes, increase the strength of yourself or of allies, or create an illusionary double of yourself.
Instead, I get a pet who can attack and flank, and do a few tricks. Unless specifically trained to do so, I would need to make a Handle Animal check. I would assume that since this is a companion, that he would do companion-things without being asked, like follow the party, fight when the party is attacked at night, etc.
|
I wanted to ask, is there anyone else out there that doesn't like the animal companion rules for druids and rangers? To me it seems like a character can now have a second character to play with. Granted there is the chance that the companion won't do whats asked of it when "pushed", but I have rarely seen that happen.
In our gaming group of four PCs, one of the characters has an animal companion. In combat everyone gets to do their thing with the one character they have, but one player gets to go twice in the round.
I also think the companions are way over powered over time.
For the GMs out there. Do you see your players using their companions as a crutch. Letting the animal take feats and skills so that the PC can accomplish more.
Lastly. When an animal gets an ability increase in INT from 2 to 3, I've heard of players putting ranks in linguistics for the companion so it can speak. Does anyone else find this to be silly.
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel the same way.
It behooves the DM to know the rules behind the scenes and the guiding principles for animal companions.
These classes are created with these things in mind also, they don't get as high level spellcasting as wizards/sorcerers, nor the versatility of clerics and bards.The animals are commanded by the PC through basic commands given under tricks, if for whatever reason the PC is disabled, separated, or in some cases silenced the animal will no longer be under any real control. As far as the animal understands, the PC is its master and it will try to follow its orders as it can, this does not mean it will follow orders coming down from headquarters that are suicidal or even reasonably dumb or dangerous.
As for the skill point in linguistics that is 100% legit, and tricks more/less become obsolete. "Run back to town and give this message(on a scroll, or scrap of paper) to the guard at the front gate of the caste" is an acceptable use opened up with this opportunity, whereas "Go fetch me a potion of cure light wounds, here is the gold and good luck" is not an acceptable use The animal cannot SPEAK or communicate in any way more effective than it would normally.
It is still a DMs job to make sure the player keeps the character and the pet two separate entities.
As a DM, if a player has an animal companion that has less than 3 INT, then I'm the one who gets to control it. Now, he can still give direction by using commands for the tricks that it may know but I get to choose how those commands are followed.
I never go out of my way to try to thwart the PCs in anyway, but I also don't go out of my way to help them either. If a player says "attack that enemy" I'll usually just take the shortest path there and make an attack - double moving to base them if they're too far away. They don't shift to better positions and they don't ready actions or delay unless ordered to defend their master. If a "fighting" companion has power attack as a feat, he uses it at every opportunity even if he's having a hard time hitting an opponent.
This gives the player the benefit of his class feature (an animal that generally helps out the party that he can give commands to) but does not give him another "character" to play.
Of course, it's possible that later on they might increase their intelligence to the point where they can understand common at which point more complicated instructions can be given. Usually by this point, the other characters have their own "companions" for combats as well though (cohorts, special mounts, summoned creatures, etc)
I had another thread about how to stat out my own PCs animal compaion about what the companion would get as a default.
As a DM I would consider that a pack animal like a wolf would probably instinctively move to flank or otherwise improve combat positions, especially as the companion got more experience. A solitary hunter, like the cougar that my PC has, would probably not think to flank opponents on his own, but could be taught a "Flank" trick.
(However in my case, I decided that "Down" was the best trick to teach the companion, on the assumption that the companion might otherwise fight even when the PC wanted him drawn out of battle for his own safety.)
I never go out of my way to try to thwart the PCs in anyway, but I also don't go out of my way to help them either. If a player says "attack that enemy" I'll usually just take the shortest path there and make an attack - double moving to base them if they're too far away.
Wouldn't it be more realistic to have them make a charge attack rather than just move over there and do nothing? In the animal world most combat-capable animals (wolves, cats, bears, hell even cattle) make charge attacks against enemies that are a distance away.
They don't shift to better positions and they don't ready actions or delay unless ordered to defend their master.Um... Tem... shouldn't that depend on the animal? Obviously a mountain lion isn't going to be accustomed to cooperative combat, but wolves, for example, use flanking and coordinate their movements tactically in the wild with their packs.
Yes, yes - of course it depends on the animal and situation at hand. An animal would certainly charge if given the opportunity.
Wolves act in packs when hunting (typically for food). When simply told to go attack something they may or may not recognize this to be the same sort of situation or that the other PCs are members of it's pack. In that case, I might allow the wolf to recognize flanking with the ranger, but that may be it.
Regardless, the point is that they do not act like INT 8+ humans - they act like animals and it's my job as DM to make them feel that way.
|
Yes an animal companion can have an Int of 3+ if it's increased via HD.
Yes you can teach an animal the Linguistics skill, although that does not necessarily give the animal the ability to SPEAK. It can UNDERSTAND the language though (and take on more complicated orders without the need to push).
I've had players play Druids, Summoners, Rangers and Cavaliers (all of which have a companion of one type or another). Wizards can summon, as can Clerics (or call Planar Allies, or bind Planar slaves). Any character can take Leadership. There's lots of ways to have an extra character on the table increasing your versatility.
That said, if a character is taking too much time deciding what he and his companion do then they should be told that. Hopefully they work out a system wherein they quickly figure out their characters' choices.
On the other hand, since this is a divine companion, and a fantasy game, I would probably allow an animal to be taught to speak as a feat which could be granted to the animal companion.
I wanted to ask, is there anyone else out there that doesn't like the animal companion rules for druids and rangers? To me it seems like a character can now have a second character to play with. Granted there is the chance that the companion won't do whats asked of it when "pushed", but I have rarely seen that happen.
In our gaming group of four PCs, one of the characters has an animal companion. In combat everyone gets to do their thing with the one character they have, but one player gets to go twice in the round.
I also think the companions are way over powered over time.
For the GMs out there. Do you see your players using their companions as a crutch. Letting the animal take feats and skills so that the PC can accomplish more.
Lastly. When an animal gets an ability increase in INT from 2 to 3, I've heard of players putting ranks in linguistics for the companion so it can speak. Does anyone else find this to be silly.
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel the same way.
Early on (1st level), the Ranger in my group rescued a pair of puppies from a goblin camp. They were tortured for entertainment, and I described them as "No Ear Puppy" and "No Tail Puppy"; the names stuck and now everybody (Ranger included) calls them "No Ear" and "No Tail".
The puppies grew into young dogs and created trouble for the Ranger in dungeons, as they would whine and bark at strange noises and smells; giving away the party's element of surprise. The Ranger quickly trained them to be quiet around "monsters".
In the middle of 3rd level, the Ranger learned the dogs were actually Blink Dogs, and got to see their abilities (Blink and Dimension Door) in action.
Just last session, the Ranger gained 4th level and needed to choose for Nature's Bond. I gave the player the option to keep both dogs as another choice on the animal companion table.
I made it clear the low CON score would mean the dogs would always have low hit points, but the high INT made them as smart as any average human commoner; they don't have the vocal equipment to speak human languages, but could understand Taldane, remember details, and follow instructions as well as any commoner they might meet.
The Ranger opted to keep No Ear and No Tail as her animal companions. As a GM, it has been challenging to keep up with the ability to Dimension Door at will and keep the CR of the opponents fair. However, all the players love having the dogs in the party, so the extra effort is worth it.
Being a 4th level party, they may not like it so much when a non-SRD monster of CR 4 that happens to be a natural enemy of the Blink Dog happens to show up ... but perhaps I've said too much. >:-)
Awwww, blink dogs! Wonderful companions that don't care if the party stinks to high heaven or all have Charisma scores of 7, so long as they get a pat, good food and the occasional game of fetch or tug-of-war and the word 'b-a-t-h' is never mentioned in their hearing. Has anyone else had the misfortune of playing alongside (and being) big softies towards animals? Cleric gets hit in the face with a sling-bullet and says to the party to 'not do anything, maybe we can talk them out of fighting'.
Next round the Fighter's tracking hound cops a sling-bullet to the nose and everybody rages and charges the suddenly horrified Goblins. Ah, good times. Incidentally the dog got a Cure spell and the Cleric just took it like a Dwarf.
As has been mentioned, unless explicitly trained to understand combat tactics (I'd rule this to be a 'trick' in and of itself) so the animal or animal companion knows to flank foes and can be told to use certain feats (perhaps another 'trick' again, much like 'Attack' must be taken twice for the animal to go anywhere near Dragons, Outsiders or the Undead.), most animal companions will just run up and eat face until told to back off or they get wounded bad enough to scare them off.
Furthermore, most Druid Animal Companions are not so much tamed but rather kindred spirits to the Druid. You can tell a lot about a Druid's personality and ethos by observing their Animal Companion as much as the Druid herself. Ranger Animal Companions .... are more like advanced animals that the Ranger trains, and less a mystical communion of two souls.
Druidic Animal Companions are Nature's way of ensuring the normally social Humanoid speicies always have a friend to lean on and draw strength from in hard times. A Ranger's Animal Companion is more likely to be something the Ranger has befriended and trained and less the same sort of mystical companion the Druid has. It can be the same, but I highly doubt it. Rangers are not 'tied' to the Natural World in the way that Druids are, ergo their Animal Companions are somewhere between the Druidic Communion and the average creatures most people train/ride/
I wanted to ask, is there anyone else out there that doesn't like the animal companion rules for druids and rangers? To me it seems like a character can now have a second character to play with. Granted there is the chance that the companion won't do whats asked of it when "pushed", but I have rarely seen that happen.
In our gaming group of four PCs, one of the characters has an animal companion. In combat everyone gets to do their thing with the one character they have, but one player gets to go twice in the round.
I also think the companions are way over powered over time.
For the GMs out there. Do you see your players using their companions as a crutch. Letting the animal take feats and skills so that the PC can accomplish more.
Lastly. When an animal gets an ability increase in INT from 2 to 3, I've heard of players putting ranks in linguistics for the companion so it can speak. Does anyone else find this to be silly.
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel the same way.Early on (1st level), the Ranger in my group rescued a pair of puppies from a goblin camp. They were tortured for entertainment, and I described them as "No Ear Puppy" and "No Tail Puppy"; the names stuck and now everybody (Ranger included) calls them "No Ear" and "No Tail".
The puppies grew into young dogs and created trouble for the Ranger in dungeons, as they would whine and bark at strange noises and smells; giving away the party's element of surprise. The Ranger quickly trained them to be quiet around "monsters".
In the middle of 3rd level, the Ranger learned the dogs were actually Blink Dogs, and got to see their abilities (Blink and Dimension Door) in action.
Just last session, the Ranger gained 4th level and needed to choose for Nature's Bond. I gave the player the option to keep both dogs as...
Sounds like it is loads of fun, certainly a nice way to have them grow on the party.
For the GMs out there. Do you see your players using their companions as a crutch. Letting the animal take feats and skills so that the PC can accomplish more.
The rogue in our group constantly expresses his dissapointment that the ranger's pet mountain lion has a higher disarm device score then he does*
*This is fake. What on earth are you talking about?
Your gonna hate the summoner then....
That's exactly what I was thinking when I read the post.
Remember how henchmen were tied to charisma in 1st/2nd edition, it put the leadership feat and animal companions to shame.
Remember how henchmen were tied to charisma in 1st/2nd edition, it put the leadership feat and animal companions to shame.
Amen, brother!!
A hark back to the days when, if utilizing "others" tactics (ie: non-pc's), where Cha actually had an inherent value to it.
I kind of miss that, honestly ...
Even for the sorcerer - something has always seemed off to me about a guy "charming" you to death. It actually *does* fit a bard ... but mostly if he's using "music" more so than "magic" (as he currently does). Sorcerer, though - with his "inborn will power" or whatever seems a better fit description wise with Wis than Cha.
:shrugs:
Anyway ... to the OP: it's a class feature - of COURSE they should use it for advantage. As most have pointed out, though - they are FAR weaker than the base character overall.
As for the Druid - man ... they don't need a DAMN thing to help them. They're a full caster, 3/4 bab, 2 good saves, class that can wild-shape. Throwing on the most powerful version of animal companion ON TOP of this is gravy and/or overkill, IMO. Keeping the animal companion, IMO, is just sacred beef hold-overs given what 3.0 did in the first place. NO need to keep that going on a druid. If he/she wants a buddy - they can pick up Leadership same as everyone else.
Regarding animals and intelligence - D&D's defaults are pretty crappy assuming what animals "know" and how they interact with things relative to humans. Some points on that front:
*of COURSE animals are more intelligent than a mere 2 would indicate. That 2 is graded on a pure human-centric model, though, and BY COMPARISON TO A HUMAN an animal *might* look like a 2 for what 2 says descriptively. However, in practice, this means NO skill points for animals, and most every predatory hunting cat skill-wise has trouble stealthing to track prey and attack at the same time {because it literally has NO sp's to dedicate to these 2 very basic NEEDS in it's life - clearly, by mechanics, they're already unsurvivable in their own environments by the RAW if you sit and really give it a look over}.
*A horse would have WELL over a str rating of 16 for it's strength score. A single horse kick can knock you back upwards of 10+ feet if it's on the bigger side. That one kick can/will shatter bone and tear flesh. In other words, it'll probably hit you WAY harder than anything the rider has that he can bring to bear ... he's simply NOT as strong as a horse. There's a reason, IRL horses won battle outright back in the day ... they just stomped all over the people and that was it. One horse kick and the enemy target was *always* down. 1d6+1 for a "heavy" horse kick is weak. 1d6+4 on the heavy war horse is better ... but still easily trumped by a human by like level 4 or so. NOT *reasonable* at all IRL.
*Gorilla's are like 800+ lbs of muscle and thick/dense bones ... giving them a 15 str is BULL! A gorilla IRL can crush a humans skull, shatter and sever a spine, or tear off an arm of a full grown man with little effort. 15 str is NOT in the neighborhood of accurately representing it's strength at all.
The more you look 'em over, the more it stands out.
At the same time, the game's not about Animals, either ... it's human-centric at it's core.
It's also not about "realism" - not much at all given the pure abstractions made all over the place. Let alone the fact that *magic* is *real* in the game, so ... whatever.
:shrugs:
Just sayin' is all ...
On the other hand, since this is a divine companion
Where did you get that from? It's just an animal with a strong bond with the Druid/Ranger.
I wanted to ask, is there anyone else out there that doesn't like the animal companion rules for druids and rangers? To me it seems like a character can now have a second character to play with. Granted there is the chance that the companion won't do whats asked of it when "pushed", but I have rarely seen that happen.
In our gaming group of four PCs, one of the characters has an animal companion. In combat everyone gets to do their thing with the one character they have, but one player gets to go twice in the round.
I also think the companions are way over powered over time.
For the GMs out there. Do you see your players using their companions as a crutch. Letting the animal take feats and skills so that the PC can accomplish more.
Lastly. When an animal gets an ability increase in INT from 2 to 3, I've heard of players putting ranks in linguistics for the companion so it can speak. Does anyone else find this to be silly.
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel the same way.
Linguistics can not make an animal talk. I am sure some animal are smart enough to talk since they communicate with each other and us(If the dog wants to be let out he will bark to get your attention and walk to the door) and they can be trained, but they don't have the correct vocal cords.
At Int 3 I would let them (the animal) full understand a language -- but without magical assistance (like the tongues spell) I wouldn't let them talk either.