Since it seems that special qualities/abilities are randomly excluded or included, I would like to suggest something much simplier.
Each animal companion has the special qualities/abilities that it's entry in the Bestiary/s gives it. So Wolf once again has Low Light Vision without issue(because, honestly, who wants a wolf that can't see in the dark, just plain silly).
If it's an advanced ability it would be gained as normal when the animal companion advances. For example, Tigers and pounce.
So no more lumping different animals together and forcing them to share special qualities/abilities that they wouldn't have! :-)
Complete Example.
Lepord, starting out it has scent and low-light vision as normal, but when it advances, it does not gain sprint, instead it gains pounce & rake as per it's entry in the Bestiary.
Much easier way of doing animal companions.
Edit: And with the ammount of people freaking out and attemtping to troll and derail the thread.... It seems this was posted in the wrong section, my mistake seeking some clairification and offering an idea that could make animal companions a bit easier/better.
heh I hate to say it but your a bit late to the party animal companions and their rules have been around since PF core they're not going to be changed in any significant way.
if you want to make your own house rules go for it, if you want to post about them do it in the house rules forums.
|
heh I hate to say it but your a bit late to the party animal companions and their rules have been around since PF core they're not going to be changed in any significant way.
if you want to make your own house rules go for it, if you want to post about them do it in the house rules forums.
Exactly, use the rules as written or change them to fit your playstyle or likes.That is what most of us do.
You seem to really be the only person raging on this issue in the three threads you have started on the same topic in the last two days.
If you're not going to contribute to the thread, it's a good idea to just refrain from posting in it.
Hope this advice helps. :-)
heh I hate to say it but your a bit late to the party animal companions and their rules have been around since PF core they're not going to be changed in any significant way.
if you want to make your own house rules go for it, if you want to post about them do it in the house rules forums.
I understand that they've been around for awhile, what I don't understand is why no "offical" clairification has been given, why some animals are lumped together, why a wolf is the only one(AKAIK) not to have Low Light Vision?
In the example of the Cheetah and the Lepord, I'm sorry, but I really don't want to have a Cheetah in Lepord skin as an animal companion, that's just silly. If I pick a lepord, I want an actualy lepord, not a cheetah dressed as a lepord.
I'm the type of play that likes to stick as close to RAW as possible, so excuse me for trying to get answers/clairification to a bit of rules confusion. And for suggesting ways that could make them even easier, Pathfinder animal companions are greatly improved than standard 3.5 in ease of creation and use. Trying to make something better is not a bad thing. ;-)
But once again, if you're not going to contribute to the thread, it's a good idea to just refrain from posting, wouldn't want to be considered a troll after all.
Back on topic..
1) Eliminate leopards (or anything else that pounces).
2) Done.
Removing options is not the way to fix/address these issues.
I do agree with you, but this should be in the houserules section.
|
Pretty much everybody is ok with animal companions as written. Maybe they have been lumped together too much, but that is for ease of use and to avoid clutter. What you are proposing could be done, but unless everybody complains about it, i don't see it happening.
P.S. It is Leopard not a Lepord.
P.P.S. Calling somebody a troll because they disagree with you is not very nice.
P.P.P.S. This really ought to be in the house rules section.
Possibly(and if so, my bad), but let's get back on topic.
Also please note that I'm not really making a house rule, I want to keep things as close to RAW as possible, house rules usually(in my experience) mostly just complicate things. I'm more seeking clarifacation and proposing a change while I'm at it. But again, whether or not I'm suggesting a house rule or which forum section this thread is supposed to be in is off-topic. Continually making off-topic posts is a great way to get reported for trolling, so I'd refrain from doing it.
And honestly, getting all hung up on what section of forum a thread is "supposed" to be in is rather silly. If you have something to contribute to the thread topic, then please do so, if you're just going to make meaningless posts that contribute nothing and just troll, don't waste your time and mine. If someone creates a thread asking for a rules clairifaction(and maybe proposing an idea to make things easier while he/she at it), posting variations of "Wtf? This thread is in the wrong section!!!??" is a great way to irritate an annoy people.
This a prime example of why the paizo boards have a bad reputation. Too many posters not using common sense and attempting to troll those looking for answers. :-(
P.P.S. Calling somebody a troll because they disagree with you is not very nice.
If someone doesn't wish to be accused of trolling, then they shouldn't knowingly create posts that contribute nothing to the thread and/or attempt to derail the topic. Honestly, this isn't rocket surgery.
Posts of....
"Hey ****! This thread is in the wrong forum section!"
"You mis-spelled somthing!"
"Some random remark(ha ha I think I'm funny teehee)"
Contribute nothing to the thread and is considered trolling.
Come on guys, this is pretty basic stuff....
|
|
Since it seems that special qualities/abilities are randomly excluded or included, I would like to suggest something much simplier.
Each animal companion has the special qualities/abilities that it's entry in the Bestiary/s gives it. So Wolf once again has Low Light Vision without issue(because, honestly, who wants a wolf that can't see in the dark, just plain silly).
If it's an advanced ability it would be gained as normal when the animal companion advances. For example, Tigers and pounce.
So no more lumping different animals together and forcing them to share special qualities/abilities that they wouldn't have! :-)
Complete Example.
Lepord, starting out it has scent and low-light vision as normal, but when it advances, it does not gain sprint, instead it gains pounce & rake as per it's entry in the Bestiary.
Much easier way of doing animal companions.
Ok, I will be constructive.There is no fix to your problem unless you if you are the GM or your GM fixes it.
The fix you suggested above sounds like it is something that you like and will work for you. But that is basically as far as it is going to go.I seriously doubt that after all this time Paizo is going to suddenly change the rules based on you Purposed animal companion fix.
Nevermind...
It's obvious most people are either
A. Missing the point entirely
or
B. Just interested in trolling.
Really disappointing and seems it's true what I've heard about the paizo boards' general population. :-(
|
|
Nevermind...
It's obvious most people are either
A. Missing the point entirely
or
B. Just interested in trolling.
Really disappointing and seems it's true what I've heard about the paizo boards' general population. :-(
I do not see anyone missing the point or trolling. I see everyone else saying its really a non issue to them and that you should houserule it if you do not like the rules as written. If you came to these forums in the hopes that everyone was going to jump in with your cause well i'm sorry as that rarely happens over here, but you yourself mentioned that the Paizo forums are notorious for "Too many posters not using common sense and attempting to troll those looking for answers. :-("
And for the record I agree that it is a issue. But I have never had the issue come up in any games I have played in or any games that I have GMed.If it did and the player and I thought it was that big of a problem we would house rule it and move along.Purposing rules changes usually has little to no effect.
|
|
P.P.S. Calling somebody a troll because they disagree with you is not very nice.If someone doesn't wish to be accused of trolling, then they shouldn't knowingly create posts that contribute nothing to the thread and/or attempt to derail the topic. Honestly, this isn't rocket surgery.
Posts of....
"Hey ****! This thread is in the wrong forum section!"
"You mis-spelled somthing!"
"Some random remark(ha ha I think I'm funny teehee)"
Contribute nothing to the thread and is considered trolling.
Come on guys, this is pretty basic stuff....
Unfortunately, these are public messageboards and unless somebody says something offensive, you can't do anything about it.
To sum up my post.
I think that ACs are ok. Most people do too. I am willing to work with you to fix those issues you see. It is however a homebrew, no matter how much you try to stick to the RAW because it is not RAW. Thus it belongs in either homebrew or houserule section, and probably will be transfered there.
As for misspelling, well i hate it when people mangle the English language and since English is not my fist language and i still try to use it properly. People who do not, on purpose, annoy me.
Trolling is when you try to derail the conversation and annoy people about stuff by intentionally saying something that they disagree with repeatedly. Saying that something is misplaced or that it works good as it is isn't trolling. Neither is disagreeing with you trolling.
Paizo boards general population is very willing to help, but it would help if you tried to loose the snarky attitude and roll with stuff that you don't like.
|
|
Unfortunately, these are public messageboards and unless somebody says something offensive, you can't do anything about it.
To sum up my post.
I think that ACs are ok. Most people do too. I am willing to work with you to fix those issues you see. It is however a homebrew, no matter how much you try to stick to the RAW because it is not RAW. Thus it belongs in either homebrew or houserule section, and probably will be transfered there.
As for misspelling, well i hate it when people mangle the English language and since English is not my fist language and i still try to use it properly. People who do not, on purpose, annoy me.
Trolling is when you try to derail the conversation and annoy people about stuff by intentionally saying something that they disagree with repeatedly. Saying that something is misplaced or that it works good as it is isn't trolling. Neither is disagreeing with you trolling.
Paizo boards general population is very willing to help, but it would help if you tried to loose the snarky attitude and roll with stuff that you don't like.
+1. Especially the part about spelling.
|
Wolf animal companions DO get low light vision. ShadowViper, I think I've seen you bring this up before.
Wolfs are of the animal type: Creature Types
Therefore, they GET low light vision.
Animal
An animal is a living, nonhuman creature, usually a vertebrate with no magical abilities and no innate capacity for language or culture. Animals usually have additional information on how they can serve as companions. An animal has the following features (unless otherwise noted).
• d8 Hit Die.
• Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (medium progression).
• Good Fortitude and Reflex saves.
• Skill points equal to 2 + Int modifier (minimum 1) per Hit Die. The following are class skills for animals: Acrobatics, Climb, Fly, Perception, Stealth, and Swim.
Traits: An animal possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).
• Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).
• Low-light vision.
• Alignment: Always neutral.
• Treasure: None.
• Proficient with its natural weapons only. A noncombative herbivore treats its natural weapons as secondary attacks. Such attacks are made with a –5 penalty on the creature's attack rolls, and the animal receives only 1/2 its Strength modifier as a damage adjustment.
• Proficient with no armor unless trained for war.
• Animals breathe, eat, and sleep.
Also, the developers have explained that some abilities were excluded for balance reasons (not simply at random). If you feel a certain animal companion should get a given ability back, go ahead and just do it in your game. See how it goes. If it works in your game, great. If not, admit it was a bad idea, take the ability away again and move on.
ShadowViper, it really does seem like you are more or less alone on this one I'm afraid. The animal companion rules are fine and they work well with the game. If you want to tweak them in your home game, have at it :)
(flagging for being in wrong forum)
|
|
Having played a druid for quite some time with several different companions, I don't see where you are getting this "Fix the companions" idea. They are not going to put every single animal from be bestiary as an option with its own companion entry. There just isn't enough time for them to do something like that when the existing system works perfectly fine and has worked fine since the game came out of beta and went live. For a fix to come, there needs to be something broken, which I just don't see here. This is something would would be up to a GM and his/her players to create house-ruled companions that are variants of existing companions.
Since it seems that special qualities/abilities are randomly excluded or included, I would like to suggest something much simplier.
You know darned well what's going on. It's called balance. The animal companion offerings deviate from Bestiary stats deliberately because what is reasonable to give a PC versus what is reasonable to eat a PC isn't always in sync.
I get it. You want more power. You see stuff in Bestiary that animal companions don't get and you want it. So you're coming here and you're arguing with anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with you in an attempt to skew the signal-to-noise ratio in favor of your viewpoint.
Your fundamental observation in the multiple threads you've got going is flawed; this isn't random, it's not senseless, and it's not complicated. It's balanced, it's deliberate, and the "solution" is as easy as use the stats you're given and keep your player nose out of DM books. If you want to house-rule something different, you're entirely welcome to do so.
The animal companion offerings deviate from Bestiary stats deliberately because what is reasonable to give a PC versus what is reasonable to eat a PC isn't always in sync.
+1; I think the proposed fix would undo a lot of very good design work that went toward making classes with an animal companion balanced.
Okay here is a little FYI and common sense lesson for some people.
If you believe a thread has been posted in the wrong forum section(mistakes do happen after all), simply inform a forum moderator and move on.
Creating a troll post that is some variation of "Hey ****! This is in the wrong section!" contributes nothing to the thread, is considered flamebaiting, as well an attempt to derail it; is a great way to annoy and irritate people while making yourself look like a troll. So when such posts are made, it should be no surprise that the thread creator may adopt a "snarky attitude" in responce to the trolling spam.
You'll find in these forums were around to help each other for the most part the reason we're posting in your thread to tell you you'll have more luck posting in house rules is because we're trying to help you.
If you post these idea in house rules forum your going to get responses that will improve your ideas and suggestions. This is not the section for it.
you might consider it trolling but on these forums we're just trying to help, there no malice involved we genuinely think if you post your ideas in house rules section you'll get a much better response.
If you want to talk about animal companions in general then by all means post in the general discussion but if you suggesting alternative rules then its houserules.
The devs do look at the house rules section you've got more of a chance of having your ideas looked at there than you will in general discussion.
But if you've got it into your head these are evil flammy trolls forums there's really nothing else I can say so hopefully you'll take the advice that has been provided and realise most of us are just trying to help.
If someone is genuinely trying to help, the accusations of trolling are not directed towards them and I apologise if they were offended.
You may be trying to help(which I appreciate and thank you for :-D). And while I do realise I should have probably posted this thread in the house rules section(despite that it's purpose is to also seek clairification on the animal companion conversion rules/mechanic/process), but it still seems that some people(and this is true of most forums) just want to troll and spam. Bigkilla being the first example in this thread.
Since it seems that special qualities/abilities are randomly excluded or included, I would like to suggest something much simplier.You know darned well what's going on. It's called balance. The animal companion offerings deviate from Bestiary stats deliberately because what is reasonable to give a PC versus what is reasonable to eat a PC isn't always in sync.
I get it. You want more power. You see stuff in Bestiary that animal companions don't get and you want it. So you're coming here and you're arguing with anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with you in an attempt to skew the signal-to-noise ratio in favor of your viewpoint.
Your fundamental observation in the multiple threads you've got going is flawed; this isn't random, it's not senseless, and it's not complicated. It's balanced, it's deliberate, and the "solution" is as easy as use the stats you're given and keep your player nose out of DM books. If you want to house-rule something different, you're entirely welcome to do so.
I would normally agree with you however, please explain what is "balanced" about a wolf being the only animal not able to see in the dark and why it's low-light vision was appearantly removed. I have so far seen nothing that proves it was just an error or a typo, just assumptions and claims of faulty eratta.
That is one of the reasons why I believe the process to be a bit random. And wish for some clairification.
And no, animal companions should never be taken as is from the Bestiary/Monster Manuals, otherwise we get 4th level druids running around with flesh-rakers as in standard 3.5.
Animal companions are still creatures that operate under the rules of the animal type. Animals have low light vision, "unless otherwise noted". That means a specific denotation that the animal does not have low light vision. Not just an absence of listing it in the statblock.
As such, the wolf companion has low light vision, and the fact that it is missing from the text block is merely an error in type. This is the only conclusion that is A: within the rules as written, B: logical, and C: possessed of common sense. If a solution fulfills all three of those, then I would be hard pressed to find a better one, short of a developer commenting on it directly.
As such, the crux of your argument does not exist. The entire issue is a non-issue.
And the Paizo forums are some of the best forums in the hobby. EnWorld, the old D&D forums, /tg/, all are veritable Mos Eisley Cantinas compared to Paizo's boards. I do believe you consider your position regarding troll posts to be correct, but in the end, you may have become exactly what you have been calling others out as.
The board has sections for specific types of conversation. Modifications to the rules, regardless of scale, go in Homebrew/Houserules/Suggestions. Simple as that.
Yes, some of the other posters have had short tempers with you, but you have been repeatedly pushing this issue when evidence has already been presented. Your online behavior is the equivalent to a person flipping over the table when they loose at a hand of poker, then going over to another table to join the game there. Is it any wonder the others at both tables are somewhat terse with you? To be fair, most here are giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't a troll yourself. Please return that respect.
I will openly admit to being a troll on many other sites, but I take my roleplaying seriously.
ShadowViper seems to be doing a very good impression of a troll to be honest. By calling everyone a troll he is baiting us to react angrly and some of us seem to be falling for it.
Now on to my opinion. I think the animal companions are fine. They may not be exactly what everyone wants, but they are meant to represent a wide variety of animals.
I have deleted my incorrect post and now have the correct answer.
James Jacobs:
Actually, they DO have low-light vision; they get that for free, basically, for having the animal creature type.
Yar.
As others have mentioned already, and if you follow the link Wraith provided you will see James Jacobs (creative director of Paizo) clarifying this as well, but not only DO wolves get low-light vision, but also that Animal Companions are build using different rules than normal animals.
Some animals that are lumped into a larger category do not get their normal animal bonuses because Animal Companions are built using different rules (yes, this was repeated intentionally).
Removed some posts and their replies. The flagging system is there for a reason - please use it, and post civilly. Thank you!
1) Eliminate leopards (or anything else that pounces).
2) Done.
Word.
I can't stand pounce. Breaks a lot of otherwise fine things.
We fixed/houseruled Pounce at our table.
There were enough hard feelings for us just to change it, the Druid and Ranger didn't care. The other people at the table now feel they are more 'balanced'.
Our party is now simply less efficient at killing things.
Ahhh progress.
Yar.
Appareny I suffered from a copy-paste error when making the link above to the post/thread where you asked about wolves and low light vision months ago and it was answered via link to James Jacobs (creative director) posting the answer.
THIS is the proper working link to the Thursday, September 2nd, 2010 post, which is followed by your post (posted the following Monday) thanking that poster for providing the answer.
*eyeballs the link, making sure it actually works this time*
It may not be printed in your hard copy of the book, but wolf animal companions, "officially", DO have low light vision.
Now, as to the houserule suggestion for bringing pounce back (and rake) for Leopards, I say: sweet.
What I would do is change the base companion to better match the leopard. That is, reduce its speed from 50 to 30. Add climb 20. Exchange trip for grab. And instead of advancing at 4th level, it would instead advance at 7th level, where it would then gain it's normal size increase, pounce and rake. Pounce and rake ARE powerful abilities, and should not be accessible at a level as low as 4th.
Balance. (and consistency. From a quick glance, I do not see any other AC gaining pounce earlier than 7th level).
~P
Wolf animal companions DO get low light vision. ShadowViper, I think I've seen you bring this up before.
Wolfs are of the animal type: Creature Types
Therefore, they GET low light vision.
Animal
An animal is a living, nonhuman creature, usually a vertebrate with no magical abilities and no innate capacity for language or culture. Animals usually have additional information on how they can serve as companions. An animal has the following features (unless otherwise noted).
• d8 Hit Die.
• Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (medium progression).
• Good Fortitude and Reflex saves.
• Skill points equal to 2 + Int modifier (minimum 1) per Hit Die. The following are class skills for animals: Acrobatics, Climb, Fly, Perception, Stealth, and Swim.
Traits: An animal possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).
• Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).
• Low-light vision.
• Alignment: Always neutral.
• Treasure: None.
• Proficient with its natural weapons only. A noncombative herbivore treats its natural weapons as secondary attacks. Such attacks are made with a –5 penalty on the creature's attack rolls, and the animal receives only 1/2 its Strength modifier as a damage adjustment.
• Proficient with no armor unless trained for war.
• Animals breathe, eat, and sleep.
Also, the developers have explained that some abilities were excluded for balance reasons (not simply at random). If you feel a certain animal companion should get a given ability back, go ahead and just do it in your game. See how it goes. If it works in your game, great. If not, admit it was a bad idea, take the ability away again and move on.
ShadowViper, it really does seem like you are more or less alone on this one I'm afraid. The animal companion rules are fine and they work well with the game. If you...
I wish it was as simple as this, however the animal subtype is a general rule, while the animal companion section is a specfic rule which would supercide(sp) the general rule unfortunately in this case.
I would also like to thank you(and those that have done the same!) for making a non-troll post that continues the discussion and contributes to the thread, it is greatly appreciated! :-D
The only way the animal companion rules would supersede the rules for the animal type is if it specifically says that the companion loses low-light vision. In order for that to be true, the animal companion entry would need to say "Unlike most creatures with the animal type, XXX does not receive low-light vision". Since that sentence, or one similar, is not found, all animal companions receive low-light vision.
Just because low-light vision is left out of a companions entry does not mean that the companion does not have it. The entry has to specifically say they do not get low-light vision.
The only way the animal companion rules would supersede the rules for the animal type is if it specifically says that the companion loses low-light vision. In order for that to be true, the animal companion entry would need to say "Unlike most creatures with the animal type, XXX does not receive low-light vision". Since that sentence, or one similar, is not found, all animal companions receive low-light vision.
Just because low-light vision is left out of a companions entry does not mean that the companion does not have it. The entry has to specifically say they do not get low-light vision.
By that logic/definition, couldn't it then be argued that a leopard(for example) would get pounce&rake as RAW instead of sprint, according to the general rules(it's bestiary entry in this case)?
Wouldn't it's animal companion entry then need to include a line such as this "Unlike most leopards, one selected as an animal companion loses pounce&raket and gains sprint instead"? Please note this is just an example.
Another example of the specfic superceding the general would be Change Shape. Normally a creature can only use Change Shape to take on a form that's within one size category of it's original form. Large can choose either a huge or medium form as an example. This general rule is superseeded by the draconic(Bronze, Gold and Silver) Change Shape in which is states they can use it to assume the form of any animal or humanoid.
I'm mainly just trying to understand and break down the mechanics for animal companion conversion. A formula if you will defining how to convert a standard animal from a Bestiary/Monster Manual into an animal companion. This mainly comes from the interest of attempting to stay as close to RAW as possible. I perfer house rules to add in something new(subrace, weapons, new character options) rather than adjust or change an existing rule, but that's just me.
Yar.
Appareny I suffered from a copy-paste error when making the link above to the post/thread where you asked about wolves and low light vision months ago and it was answered via link to James Jacobs (creative director) posting the answer.
THIS is the proper working link to the Thursday, September 2nd, 2010 post, which is followed by your post (posted the following Monday) thanking that poster for providing the answer.
*eyeballs the link, making sure it actually works this time*
It may not be printed in your hard copy of the book, but wolf animal companions, "officially", DO have low light vision.
Now, as to the houserule suggestion for bringing pounce back (and rake) for Leopards, I say: sweet.
What I would do is change the base companion to better match the leopard. That is, reduce its speed from 50 to 30. Add climb 20. Exchange trip for grab. And instead of advancing at 4th level, it would instead advance at 7th level, where it would then gain it's normal size increase, pounce and rake. Pounce and rake ARE powerful abilities, and should not be accessible at a level as low as 4th.
Balance. (and consistency. From a quick glance, I do not see any other AC gaining pounce earlier than 7th level).
~P
Wow, thank you!
Heh the funny thing is before starting this little endeaver, I had looked through my own old posts because I could've sworn I had brought up/asked about the Wolf's lack of Low-Light Vision before, must've missed one or two.
By that logic/definition, couldn't it then be argued that a leopard(for example) would get pounce&rake as RAW instead of sprint, according to the general rules(it's bestiary entry in this case)?
No. Because the Small Cat companion is not a leopard. You are not selecting a leopard (or cheetah) animal companion. You are selecting a small cat animal companion. It is a small cat, a generic animal that represents all small cats. It is not a leopard. (Though the stats given are actually closer to a cheetah, they are not the same. The small cat, though close in stats to a cheetah, is still not a cheetah.)
By that logic/definition, couldn't it then be argued that a leopard(for example) would get pounce&rake as RAW instead of sprint, according to the general rules(it's bestiary entry in this case)?The only way the animal companion rules would supersede the rules for the animal type is if it specifically says that the companion loses low-light vision. In order for that to be true, the animal companion entry would need to say "Unlike most creatures with the animal type, XXX does not receive low-light vision". Since that sentence, or one similar, is not found, all animal companions receive low-light vision.
Just because low-light vision is left out of a companions entry does not mean that the companion does not have it. The entry has to specifically say they do not get low-light vision.
They creature type didn't change so there is no need to mention anything related to creature type unless it is different from the norm.
Wouldn't it's animal companion entry then need to include a line such as this "Unlike most leopards, one selected as an animal companion loses pounce&raket and gains sprint instead"? Please note this is just an example.
Isn't that pretty much what they did when they gave the list of animal companion abilities?
I'm mainly just trying to understand and break down the mechanics for animal companion conversion. A formula if you will defining how to convert a standard animal from a Bestiary/Monster Manual into an animal companion. This mainly comes from the interest of attempting to stay as close to RAW as possible. I perfer house rules to add in something new(subrace, weapons, new character options) rather than adjust or change an existing rule, but that's just me.
Adding in any new companions would technically be a house rule. I do agree that it would be nice if there was some conversion advice. I think that any advice they give will cause more problems than it solves. It would probably work fine for most animals but then you'd start getting into dinosaurs and campaign unique animals that will cause problems. Some things, like the roc, would not make a good animal companion.
It might be easier to create a feat that the animal companion can take that would allow it to take one of its "natural" abilities. Maybe have some abilities be tied to hit dice. You could use the Beast Shape spells for some guideline on that.